Victim of terroriism medal ... Cheap politics?

[Chris Boonzaier]

A couple of weeks ago on a French Military forum there was a bit of a discussion about the new "Victim of terrorism" medal....

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Médaille_nationale_de_reconnaissance_aux_victimes_du_terrorisme

Of course, the timing was terrible.... the popularity polls of the President in the toilet, and just before the 14th of July, one can assume that there is a political motivation...

Not that the victims do not deserve some kind of recognition, but does it have to be an award that is so high in the order of priority? This medal ranks above military bravery awards and waaaay above the military wound medal.

So a French soldier who was wounded in Mali, Afghanistan, Iraq, Indo China or WW2 after putting his life in danger, is less highly decorated than a civilian who just happens to have been collatoral damage in a terror attack?

The soldier actively puts his life in danger, and gets lesser awards than a civilian, who may have been a pimp selling underage Girls to drug dealers when he was wounded by a nail from a bomb going off 50m away in a terror attack?

Once again, I see the positive side to recognising victims, but is this justified in the form they have chosen? :-(

[ccj]

That's a bit much regarding the order of precedence. It just goes to show how little people think before they act. It should below all bravery medals but ahead of all campaign or service awards. Is it purely a civilian award?