Memorials for terror victims.

[Workingman]

Why?

What good will they do?

The government is to fund two permanent memorials, someplace. They will not prevent more attacks, and they are only directly relevant to the families and friends of the victims; many of whom will not live anywhere near them. All they will do is make it look as though the government is concerned and is acting positively.

It is easy to throw up a monument, but a lot harder to get after real or potential terrorists. To do something positive about terrorism would be a far better memorial to those who have fallen victim to it.

[TheOstrich]

Yes, I'm inclined to agree.

If the atrocity had been in this country, then perhaps there would be a case for a simple memorial where it had taken place, but otherwise, like you, I can't really see the point.

On the other hand, there might be a persuasive argument for something like a garden of remembrance for terrorist victims at Alrewas (the National Memorial Arboretum).

[Aggers]

There might be a persuasive argument for something like a garden of remembrance for terrorist victims at Alrewas (the National Memorial Arboretum).

That's a good idea, Ost. I have a fear that there could well be a few more victims before this problem is resolved.

[Diflower]

Have to admit that was my initial reaction, but since thought about it, and realised it's important that these kind of things are permanently remembered and recorded, for history.
In years to come, we will never know whether this will be seen as an abomination, or 'oh, you thought that was bad'?!

[Workingman]

I like Ossie's idea of a garden at the National Memorial Arboretum. What I do not understand is why we should have two memorials, at places yet to be specified, when the victims were from all over the UK.

Things were different in Dunblane and Warrington where the victims were local. It was also different with Lockerbie where the victims were international and local, but the event happened there. It has 'our' monument to all who died. Whether the Tunisians do similar is up to them. Even the 7/7 London bombings were in different parts of the city and affected people from all over the world.

At least with a National monument all victims of all atrocities can be remembered equally.

[Suff]

I'd be likely to go for the National Memorial Arboretum too. There seems to be some assumption that this is a one of a kind horrific act which must be remembered so that it never happens again. This will not be the case.

If we look at the goals of IS and fundamental Islam, they are not going away and their tactics are not going to change. Also going to a non Islamic western country for holiday is not always going to ensure safety, they will simply export that terror into our society instead of bringing it to our citizens when they travel to "their" countries.

At least the Arboretum gives scope to expand and grow as the conflict grows. Otherwise we'll have memorials all over the country until we have memorial fatigue and that, for the victims, would be bad.

Memorials, for me, are things to remind us of situations which either cannot be avoided or are best remembered so that they don't happen again. Notably WW1 memorials didn't stop WW2. We are being forced into a struggle in the Islamic world where a group of fanatics want to re-draw the borders of the modern world and believe they have the power to do so. They also believe we do not have the will to stop them. This, to me, is nowhere near the end of the situation and the body count is likely to be a LOT higher before it is over.

Later we will need a memorial to remind the politicians of the old phrase. A stitch in time.....

[Aggers]

Notably, WW1 memorials didn't stop WW2. .....

That's a very apt comment, Suff., and food for thought.

[cromwell]

I'm a bit conflicted on this subject. On the one hand it is important that innocent victims of terrorist attacks aren't forgotten.

On the other hand I think there is an element of attempting to "maintain social cohesion" here. Phrases like "The actions of these evil men, who are not really Islamic, shall not be allowed to divide us, etc etc etc" have been used a lot.

Well in this neck of the woods the communities are divided; they always have been. It's not a coincidence that the 7/7 bombers came from Leeds, and the youngest suicide bomber came from Dewsbury. You can put up all the memorials you want, but that's how things are.

It's a bit like whistling past the graveyard; that if we all attend multi-faith memorial services then everything will be OK. But it isn't like that.

[Workingman]

The Australian woman who had here legs blown off was in Beeston the other day talking with 'da comuniti' leaders and telling them that Beeston was a Shangri-La within a Utopian oasis surrounded by the hell-hole that is Leeds.

I would bet good money that she would not dare to walk through there at any time of day without the film crew, cameras, microphones and recorders surrounding her.

Then last night we had BBC Look North following a bunch of know-nothing teenagers, who could hardly string two words of English together to make a sentence, on their way down to London to spread lurve and peess.

[Suff]

Well in this neck of the woods the communities are divided; they always have been. It's not a coincidence that the 7/7 bombers came from Leeds, and the youngest suicide bomber came from Dewsbury. You can put up all the memorials you want, but that's how things are.

Yup, but the really important part here is left out even by you cromwell. That division is made by the incomers. Not by the locals. That is why it's an insoluble problem. The indigenous locals can't "give" any more, yet the incoming non indigenous not only don't want more given but actually just want that part of the country to be theirs and to be left alone to turn it into a festering swamp of 3rd world values and teachings.....

Once they have enough British "peasants", they have an army....