Well lets look at who has anything to gain from attacks like this:

• The terrorists themselves, if they did have some "greater cause" that they wanted to push

• The right and anti immigrant movement will gain a huge influx of support

• The conservatives will have an easier time passing surveilance and police laws

• The secret services will have more freedom to spy on people

• Warmongers will have an easier time to call for a new, proper war in the middle east. No suprise if the NATO invades Syria off the back of this

• Defense and weapon industry will a) sell more guns to the people, who now feel less protected by the government and b) would profit hugely from a new war

• Everyone who wants the TPP and possibly also the TTIP to pass has gotten a nice distraction as they always do when something new happens.

Now lets look at who definitely doesnt have any gains from the attack, so as to exclude them from involvement theories:

• Anti-surveilance movements will have a harder time reasoning against systematic spying

• Pro-immigration movements will lose massive amounts of support

Finally lets make some educated guesses about which of the parties that have anything to gain, are actually able to pull something like this off:

• ISIS themselves have shown to be competent enough to carry out attacks on western cities, however an attack on such a scale has never happened before in recent history, and it would seem unlikely to not have been uncovered beforehand. They may have at least been supported by other parties

• The right? I think this is the one we can eliminate from the list. There is no right-wing terror cell organized enough to pull this off without anyone noticing. They are the least likely to be supported by a bigger organization. However I find it possible that on of the intentions was to use them as pawns for the backlash against the refugee shelters, even if they most likely didnt know they were being used.

• The conservatives? Possible but unlikely. They dont have the means to bring weapons into the country unnoticed without being exposed themselves. They are under far too much surveilance themselves, and I believe that for them the attack was just a lucky coincidence.

• The secret service? Hell yes they have the means to do this kind of thing. Either by helping already hyped ISIS fanatics getting guns into fance, or directly by using their own people. The latter would either mean that the attackers have gotten away, or that they didnt know they were meant to die in the end, so I find it less likely than them arming an helping ISIS.

• Warmongers? I think they are mostly just unoprganized nationalists and lack the funds to arm their own enemy just to spread fear. I also doubt they would think that that many Europeans would justify even a full scale attack on middle eastern countries.

• Last but not least the weapons industry definitley does have something big to gain from this and has the means to fund it. If they are involved they probably did so by proxy, via secret services, but their involvement is highly likely.

• The people involved with the TPP probably dont have the means to covertly carry out such an attack, but they may well have connections that can. However the attack will only push them from the frontpages for a few months, so it may be too cost-inefficient for them. They also are after all people, so such a short timeframe of more secrecy may not actually be worth 100something dead people in Europe. They definitely care about money a lot, but probably not to the point where theyd be so rotten as to not even give a shit about that many human beings.

Did I catch them all? Or did I make a mistake somewhere?