Munich car-ramming that injured 36 investigated as 'Islamic extremism'
The car-ramming that injured at least 36 people in Munich, Germany, on Thursday ahead of a major security conference featuring world leaders and defense leaders, was an intentional attack and is being treated as Islamic extremism, authorities said Friday.
Gabriele Tilmann, a senior public prosecutor, told a news conference in the city that the unidentified suspect admitted in a police interview that he drove into the crowd purposefully.
"The reason that he gave could be summarized as a religious reason. I can't say more about it, but what he said would lead us to conclude that it was a religious motive," she said.
"We don't want to jump to any conclusions, but given what has happened we would assume this was an Islamic extremist attack," she added. After his arrested on Thursday the suspect prayed, she said.
The suspect, a 24-year-old Afghan national, was arrested on suspicion of 36 counts of attempted murder, as well as grievous bodily harm and reckless driving.
He drove a white Mini into a crowd of 1,500 people marching through central Munich, as part of a trade union demonstration. This was not linked to the security conference, police said.
The security conference is a high-profile annual meeting that discusses geopolitical matters. This year the summit is dominated by the course of the ongoing war in Ukraine. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are speaking at the event.
Tilmann also said that there is no evidence so far that the suspect is part of any Islamist organization or was working with any accomplices. Detectives had only just started investigating digital evidence from his phone and various social media accounts, where he posted about his Islamic faith and fitness regime. Police have searched his apartment but didn't find any evidence linked to the attack.
The suspect was an asylum-seeker with legal right to remain in Germany, who lives in Munich and came to the country in 2016 as an unaccompanied minor, police said. He was known to authorities 'from investigations in which he was a witness due to his previous work' as a store detective, Munich police said in a statement Thursday. He has no previous convictions.
Those injured range in age from 2 to 60 years old and were all taking part in the trade union march.
At least eight people were seriously injured, including a child, Christian Huber, deputy chief of police, told the news conference. The number of injuries is not exhaustive, police said, as there might be more who have sought health care privately.
Huber told the news conference that officers who were accompanying the march opened fire at the vehicle but did not hit the driver nor an unidentified passenger.
There will now be an investigation into the use of firearms, a standard procedural response.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lammy is picking a needless fight with America
The alarming revelation that 2024 recorded the highest number of global conflicts since the Second World War should be taken as an incentive to deepen ties with key allies, not fracture them. That would certainly be the response of any government committed to the defence of the realm faced with the depressing statistic that last year saw 61 conflicts taking place in 36 countries. Of these, 11 were defined as full-blown conflicts – those that claimed at least 1,000 battlefield deaths – and included the ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as other less-publicised violent eruptions in Sudan, Syria, Nigeria and Ethiopia. At a time when Sir Keir Starmer is attempting to promote his national security credentials, the rising tide of conflict detailed in a report by Sweden's Uppsala University should prompt his Government to strengthen ties with key allies such as the US and Israel. Instead, by opting to target two members of the Israeli government with sanctions, Starmer has shown that he is more interested in virtue-signalling than common sense. National security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and finance minister Bezalel Smotrich may come from the ulta-nationalist fringe of Israeli politics, but they remain important members of Israel's democratically elected government, which is one of the UK's closest allies in the Middle East. Moreover, Israel, just like Ukraine, finds itself in the vanguard of the West's deepening confrontation with two of the most potent threats it faces, in the form of Vladimir Putin's Russia and Iranian-sponsored Islamist terrorism. The UK's support for Ukraine, together with its European allies, is predicated on the understanding that Western security would be fatally compromised if Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine were to succeed. Similarly, the UK's declaration of support for Israel in the wake of the October 7 attacks in 2023 was based on the tacit acknowledgement that it was in the West's interests that Iran's backing for Hamas terrorists must not be allowed to go unchallenged, especially given the ayatollahs' fixation with developing nuclear weapons. The Labour Government's decision, therefore, to single out two prominent members of the Israeli government for public censure not only threatens to undermine relations with a key regional ally. It runs the risk of jeopardising our own national security, especially if the Israelis conclude it is no longer in their interests to share vital intelligence with the UK. Israeli foreign minister Gideon Saar has already announced the Israeli cabinet will meet next week to respond to what he called an 'unacceptable decision'. The British Government's decision to pick on the two politicians is hardly surprising given its previous lamentable track record of targeting Israel, with Foreign Secretary David Lammy declaring his support for the International Criminal Court and its highly politicised move to prosecute Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes. Yet, by siding with other self-righteous, but wholly naive, administrations in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway, to provoke an entirely avoidable diplomatic row with Israel, Starmer and Co have placed themselves firmly on the wrong side of history. Apart from alienating Israel, the move also risks causing a rift with the US, another key ally. America's secretary of state Marco Rubio was particularly critical of the measures imposed against Ben-Gvir and Smotrich for 'inciting violence against the Palestinian people'. The sanctions 'do not advance US-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire, bring all hostages home and end the war,' he said, urging the UK 'not to forget who the real enemy is'. Hitting two controversial Israeli politicians with sanctions might play to Labour's vociferously anti-Israel supporters, but it could prove to be a self-defeating move in terms of safeguarding our own long-term interests. In terms of the likely impact it will have on Israeli policy, the sanctions will be about as effective as Greta Thunberg's equally puerile attempt this week to break Israel's Gaza blockade with her Freedom Flotilla. At the same time they run the risk of sending a signal to Iran and other hostile regimes that the UK is more interested in embarrassing its allies than confronting its enemies. It is certainly hard to grasp the logic of why, when Western powers like the UK are preparing to confront Iran over its nuclear programme, they should choose this moment to pick a fight with Israel, Tehran's sworn enemy. The need to impose fresh sanctions against Iran was very much in evidence at this week's meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, when Rafael Grossi, the body's director general, confirmed three new previously undeclared nuclear sites had been identified in Iran that could be used for developing nuclear weapons. The UK is among a number of European powers that have responded by pressing for the reimposition of sanctions against Tehran. But the ayatollahs are unlikely to change course on their nuclear ambitions if they believe they share a common interest with Britain and its allies in targeting the Israelis. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Entire Fulbright Scholarship board quits, citing Trump admin actions
All members of the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board announced their resignation on Wednesday, releasing a statement accusing President Donald Trump's administration of political interference in the prestigious exchange program. The 12-member board alleged the Trump administration "usurped the authority of the Board" by denying Fulbright awards to "a substantial number of individuals" who were selected for the 2025-2026 academic year. The board also alleged the administration is currently "subjecting" an additional 1,200 international Fulbright recipients to "an unauthorized review process and could reject more." "We believe these actions not only contradict the statute but are antithetical to the Fulbright mission and the values, including free speech and academic freedom, that Congress specified in the statute," the board said in its statement. MORE: State Department delivers crushing news to Fulbright scholar hopefuls in Afghanistan The board oversees the Fulbright Foreign Student Program, which offers international graduate students, young professionals and artists the opportunity to study and conduct research in the United States. The government-funded, non-partisan program -- which was established by Congress in 1942 under then-President Harry Truman's administration -- operates in more than 160 countries worldwide, providing scholarships to approximately 4,000 foreign students annually. In the joint letter on Wednesday, the board said the awards that were overridden by the administration were concentrated in biology, engineering, architecture, agriculture, crop sciences, animal sciences, biochemistry, medical sciences, music and history. MORE: State Dept. suggests Afghan Fulbright hopefuls seek other options as program stalls The board claimed it has raised "legal issues and our strong objections with" senior Trump administration officials "on multiple occasions," including in writing, but says the concerns have not been acknowledged. In a statement to statement to ABC News after the board announced its resignation, a senior State Department official called the decision "a political stunt attempting to undermine President Trump." "It's ridiculous to believe that these members would continue to have final say over the application process, especially when it comes to determining academic suitability and alignment with President Trump's Executive Orders." the official said. The board, however, said in its statement that the decision was not one "we take lightly," woth the board calling on Congress, the courts and future Fulbright Boards to "prevent the administration's efforts to degrade, dismantle, or even eliminate one of our nation's most respected and valuable programs." "Injecting politics and ideological mandates into the Fulbright program violates the letter and spirit of the law that Congress so wisely established nearly eight decades ago," the board concluded in its statement. Entire Fulbright Scholarship board quits, citing Trump admin actions originally appeared on
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Advocates organizing to support immigrant families
( — Experts and advocates like immigration attorney Andrew Newcomb and First 5 California's Executive Director, Jackie Wong are telling Fox 40 how they are re-doubling efforts to support California immigrant families. Wong says that First 5 California started supporting migrant families fairly recently. 'A few years ago, when there was an Afghan refugee and asylee issue the California Children and Families Commission (First 5) decided to actually get involved in immigration because it was such a prevalent part of our lives,' says Wong 'We want to promote inclusion and really create the safe, stable, nurturing environment that is necessary for Californians to thrive.' Within the last five years they've been building up their resources and network to better support immigrant communities. One of the partners they've been working with to better equip immigrant families is immigration attorney Andrew Newcomb. Newcomb has a decade of experience in immigration law. He currently offers pro bono services to migrant families in the San Jose Mexican consulate while also hosting community workshops with First 5. We sat down with Newcomb for a Q&A for him to answer some of the most pressing questions when it comes to immigration. Here is some of his legal advice. Q: What does someone do if they are detained by ICE agents? A: 'It's best, of course, to not divulge information. You can just save those arguments for a judge that you're hearing, invoke your right to remain silent, and to speak with counsel,' said Newcomb. Q: What can someone working to obtain citizenship do if their family is of mixed status and their child is about to turn 21? A: 'There's a difference between people that came in typically with a visa or people that can benefit from a family petition prior to April 30, 2001. They can usually apply for residency here in the United States, whereas other folks may have to do a longer line which ultimately leads them to a consular office in their country of origin,' said Newcomb. Newcomb also clarified that there are defenses to deportation that are available for people who can prove they've lived in the U.S. for at least ten years and have immediate relatives who have lawful status. Q: Is someone's asylum hearing or application for citizenship different if they entered the country within the last two years? A: 'Yes. So this is basically an issue where they've expanded the definition of what constitutes an 'arriving alien' for the purposes of a process called expedited removal. When someone's in an expedited removal proceeding, they don't necessarily have the right to have their hearing heard before an immigration judge.' Newcomb also adding, 'What we're seeing here is that the government attorneys are attempting to have cases dismissed and then right after the cases are dismissed, provided the person can't prove that they've been in the United States for longer than two years, ICE officers are waiting to detain them and place them in expedited removal proceedings. However, even people whose cases have not been dismissed are also being scooped up by ICE agents, which of course creates an issue of overlapping jurisdiction, which still has to be resolved by the courts.' Q: What if someone is trying to obtain status legally, but fears arrest at one of their court hearings? A: 'It's very important for people that have been here for fewer than two years to take advantage of filing a motion to appear via video or filing a motion to continue your hearing until you're on the outside of those two years. Immigration judges here in Sacramento, just like in the Bay Area, are very receptive to those kinds of motions because at the end of the day, they want to do their jobs as arbiters of fact, and they don't want to have their cases just whisked away from them.' Newcomb says a video court hearing can increase safety while attending asylum proceedings. More resources and services, like the instructional guide to appear in court by video can be found on Newcomb's website, First 5's resources for immigrant and refugee families are available on their website, Other organizations within the Sacramento region include the Sacramento Rapid Response Network. Their 24-hour hotline is (916) 382-0256. Another resource available to migrant families is They feature a collection of videos to educate and empower immigrant communities. An additional resource to help immigrants know their rights is the 'Know Your Rights' red cards. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
