An early complaint as the first reports appeared about a murderous attack on a Christmas market in Magdeburg was that headlines referred to “car driven into crowd” or “car drives into crowd”. A collage of such headlines posted to Twitter/X was amplifed by Elon Musk as evidence of why “you don’t hate the lying legacy media enough”, while J.D. Vance asked pointedly “Who was driving the car?”. The inference was that the media was obscuring the identity of the attacker and downplaying the nature of what had happened. (1)
Such objections might have validity in some contexts, but not when news is breaking and details remain unconfirmed. As verified information has emerged numerous profiles of the suspect have been published, as well as headlines that give his name and/or his status as a “Saudi refugee” living in Germany. The suspicion is that Musk and Vance assumed that the attack was as an example “Islamic terrorism” and wanted to see headlines that reflected that. However, media caution was vindicated when it was discovered that suspect had a long history as an anti-Islam atheist. As reported by the Telegraph:
The man suspected of driving a car into a Christmas market in Germany is an exiled Saudi doctor who praised far-Right politicians for combating the “Islamisation” of Europe and pledged to take “revenge” for the “harassment” of female refugees.
…In a five-minute audio message posted online shortly before the terror attack, Taleb al-Abdulmohsen said he held the German nation responsible for crimes including the killing of Socrates in Athens in 399 BC.
He went on to compare socialism and liberalism and accused the German authorities of stealing a USB stick from his post box.
Signing off the message on his X, formerly Twitter, account, Abdulmohsen said he held “the Germans responsible for what I am facing”.
…He also voiced support for Elon Musk, Tommy Robinson and Alternative for Germany, the far-right anti-immigration party.
Al-Abdulmohsen had also recently expounded some of his views in an interview for an American organisation called the “RAIR Foundation”, and his activism feaured in a BBC report in 2019. This prior media exposure must have been frustrating for other activist ex-Muslims who had reportedly found him difficult or unstable.
It’s always distasteful when someone’s opinions or writings achieve prominence due to an act of violence, and there’s a risk that disturbed individuals will tske away the message that killing is a way to achieve instant significance. However, unless the facts are established false narratives will take hold.
Relevant analysis has been posted online by an ex-Muslim named Ridvan Aydemir (here) and by an academic terrorism expert named Peter R. Neumann (here). Ayedmir addresses speculation that the explanation is that al-Abdulmohsen was secretly an Islamic extremist all along: it is not correct that al-Abdulmohsen shouted “Allahu Akbar” when he was arrested, while a comment he posted online that referred to Hamas “seems like a mocking response to someone who supports Hamas” (plus of course praising Hamas would hardly be consistent with an “undercover” identity). Neumann meanwhile suggests that the suspect fits the category of “mixed, unstable or unclear” ideology, an expression of “the growing gray area between political extremism and mental illness” (“die zunehmende Grauzone zwischen politischem Extremismus und psychischer Erkrankung”).
Despite this, though, some online commentators continue to assert not only that Al-Abdulmohsen is an Islamic terrorist, but that such an interpretation is so obvious that doubts or scepticism should be derided. Thus Graham Linehan mocks “the credulousness of the elite liberal class” that “cannot conceive that a man capable of ploughing a car into a crowd could be just as capable of lying about his intentions”, supporting his argument with commentary from conspiracist David Vance and a video from Mahyar Tousi titled “Sleeper Cells Exposed”. Such arguments, though, can be turned back on themselves: if an Islamic extremist could pose as an anti-Islam atheist, might not an anti-Islam atheist pose as an Islamic extremist? Both scenarios seem unlikely given the suspect’s erratic nature, although it can be noted that the attack has boosted the election prospects of the AfD, the party for which Al-Abdulmohsen has expressed support.
Musk himself has taken a different route, expressing the view that “the atheist angle was a scam to avoid extradition” for rape. This version was brought to his attention by Ian Miles Cheong (2), who in turn cited a Saudi commentator named Salman Al-Ansari. This may well be the case, but the distinction between self-interested grifters and true believers can often be difficult to discern and makes very little practical difference.
Note
1. The same thing happened just after the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, when Musk alleged that breaking news headlines about “loud noises” at the rally were “pure propaganda”. Helen Lewis dissected Musk’s rhetoric in The Atlantic.
2. Musk’s amplifcation of Cheong is just one example of his polluted information stream. As a source, Cheong is consistently unreliable: a recent example can be seen here, where he commented on a video of an Australian fighter being physically abused by Russian captors in Ukraine. Cheong mocked the captive (reportedly named Oscar Jenkins), called him a “mercenary” when it is more reasonable to regard him as an idealist volunteer, and then gave an account of Russian dialogue in the clip that was completely at odds with a subtitled version.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Leave a Reply