I understand and fully support that AVSIM is an international community and political differences should not play a role. But I was deeply concerned to see an AI package uploaded recently for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard by "FreightShifters." The IRG is an identified active supporter of international terrorism and the "freight" they are likely to be carrying is going to include materials being distributed to carry out terrorist acts around the world. I don't think it's "politics" to say that this is ethically a questionable thing. I'm totally okay with including Iran and any other country in our international community - the more we foster friendships across political boundaries the better the world will be. But the IRG is a brutal, repressive and violent organization that sponsors the killing and maiming of innocent people. Do we really want that on AVSIM? I hope our editors will give this some serious thought.Ian Scott

You could present the same argument about having an add-on Messerschmitt bf109 with a swastika on the tailplane, or a Mitsubishi A6M Zero with its meatball fighting over China at the start of WW2. Both of these were aircraft from powers that brutally murdered civilians in their millions, so they make the IRG look like a bunch of schoolgirls in comparison.Having an interest in these and other aircraft doesn't make one a supporter of what they represent ideologically any more than those who collect militaria are closet ##### or whatever, and pretending such things don't exist is simply an attempt to censor history.Ironically enough, what such an FS add-on of that ilk might do, is prompt someone to find out more about it's real-world counterpart, by which means it will have served to highlight something to people who might otherwise have known nothing of it, so it could actually be a positive thing from an educational standpoint.Who is to say most people who download such a thing won't then simulate intercepting them with their FS F/A-18 or F-16?Al

You could present the same argument about having an add-on Messerschmitt bf109 with a swastika on the tailplane, or a Mitsubishi A6M Zero with its meatball fighting over China at the start of WW2. Both of these were aircraft from powers that brutally murdered civilians in their millions, so they make the IRG look like a bunch of schoolgirls in comparison.Having an interest in these and other aircraft doesn't make one a supporter of what they represent ideologically any more than those who collect militaria are closet ##### or whatever, and pretending such things don't exist is simply an attempt to censor history.Ironically enough, what such an FS add-on of that ilk might do, is prompt someone to find out more about it's real-world counterpart, by which means it will have served to highlight something to people who might otherwise have known nothing of it, so it could actually be a positive thing from an educational standpoint.Who is to say most people who download such a thing won't then simulate intercepting them with their FS F/A-18 or F-16?Al

Hi AlI always find myself in almost total agreement with your posts but on this one will have to agree to disagree. I do totally agree that history is history and you should never try to hide or muzzle it. But the difference between the IRG and the examples you've mentioned is that in spite of the horrible atrocities and war crimes committed by the regimes represented by those aircraft, the aircraft belonged to a legitimate military organization that was recognized as such. Though the IRG poses as a legitimate miltitary force, it is almost universally accepted that it is one of the most active organizations in the world providing logistical, intelligence, planning and training support to international terrorists.My problem with this file is not the aircraft, nor the nation that owns the aircraft. My problem is that presenting these particular aircraft as mere "freighters" is misleading. (Not deliberately misleading BTW, I have no doubts whatsover that this is an entirely innocent action and not intended to offend). But to imply that an aircraft used by the IRG is a freighter is a bit like describing Auschwitz as a "camp" or a really bad dude as a "politician." Both statements are technically true but also horribly untrue and misleading.Let me ask this question. If someone posted an add-on that replicated 9/11 in perfect detail so people could experience the thrill of crashing a UA 757 into the twin towers, would we find it morally offensive? I suspect we would. If I posted a reply to a question on the forums that was helpful, technically accurate and totally well-intended but couched my reply using obscene or racist language would we find it offensive? I think we would.The issue I want to raise is this - are we okay with posting a file that implies that an aircraft actively used to provide logistical support for terrorist operations is simply a "freighter?" I think it's morally questionable and just want the AVSIM "powers that be" to consider the question.As always, respectfully my friendIan

Ian,there is truth to what you say. It is morally questionable, but not more or less than it is to fly a warplane. Hornets, Warthogs, Mirages and whatever are made to kill, and a person killed by one of these warplanes doesn't care for what the motivation or the moral was he was killed for. These planes aren't "peacekeepers", they are killers. What I want to say is that either we ban them all or none. The real beauty of real moral is that it applies to everything :-)My personal opinion is that we ban none, because we are grown ups and we decide for ourselves what we use and what not.

Whilst I'm no fan of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, nor any religiously motivated military action for that matter, I wouldn't want to deny the fact that they exist. If you want understanding, I think you have to at least acknowledge that such things are real and indeed that, depending on your point of view, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. After all, even democracies such as the United States were born out of military action which at the time, could easily have been described as paramilitary terrorism if you happened to be on the side of King George.Like so many things, it's a matter of perspective, but even though that is so, it in no way legitimises the IRG's actions to me, so my moral compass is in no danger for simply acknowledging such things exist, nor even in having them fly around my virtual world as pixels as a testament to the fact that they do exist. And so if I want to simulate flying around Iran with realistic traffic, then that's what I need, in just the same way as I need virtual Messerschmitts with swastikas emblazoned upon them if I want to simulate righteously smiting them down with a simulated Spitfire. Their existence is not going to make me agree with their moral code any more than enjoying watching Das Boot is going to make me a sympathiser for a really bad dude's cause.If we do censor IRG aircraft, then do we also not have any Boeing aircraft or Jeppesen stuff because they too are under investigation for having allegedly planned and executed some illegal rendition flights? Do we not have any IAF aircraft so as not to upset Palestinians, or Avro Lancasters so as not to upset Germans? What about a B-29 with Bockscar or Enola Gay painted on the side of it, can we have one of those?You see, once you start censoring, then you have to decide not only where it starts, but where it stops. Whereas so long as we are free to make a moral choice and to understand that hiding from the existence of things doesn't make them go away, then we are also free to understand the whole story and make a decision for ourselves. Everyone is entitled to their opinion in such matters of course, and mine is not representative of Avsim, just of myself, so anyone can feel free to disagree with me. But one would assume that since Avsim uploads are checked by library staff, the add-on in question has undergone that check too. Avsim's tagline is 'simulation's premier resource', and nowhere in that tag does it say anything about forcing a moral code upon anyone. That is up to the individual.There doubtless have been some people who have used FS to simulate flying a Boeing into the World Trade Center in versions of FS before it was removed. But do we then remove 757s and 767s and any sceneries of tall buildings from the Avsim file library?I guess what will be interesting, is to see how many downloads it gets, this at least is an opportunity to see if people vote with their feet. 119 downloads so far, so either Avsim is harbouring a number of Iranian revolutionary sympathisers, or more likely, some people wanted a bit of unusual AI traffic.Al

the aircraft belonged to a legitimate military organization that was recognized as such. Though the IRG poses as a legitimate miltitary force, it is almost universally accepted that it is one of the most active organizations in the world providing logistical, intelligence, planning and training support to international terrorists.

Ian, it is a very lame argument, I doubt it even holds water from the international law point of view. I doubt you can on one hand consider Iranian government legitimate yet some branch of their air force illegitimate. You constructed your own standard as to who is legitimate and who only 'poses' to be such.

I understand and fully support that AVSIM is an international community and political differences should not play a role. But I was deeply concerned to see an AI package uploaded recently for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard by "FreightShifters." The IRG is an identified active supporter of international terrorism and the "freight" they are likely to be carrying is going to include materials being distributed to carry out terrorist acts around the world. I don't think it's "politics" to say that this is ethically a questionable thing. I'm totally okay with including Iran and any other country in our international community - the more we foster friendships across political boundaries the better the world will be. But the IRG is a brutal, repressive and violent organization that sponsors the killing and maiming of innocent people. Do we really want that on AVSIM? I hope our editors will give this some serious thought.Ian Scott

By simply posting this thread publicly you've added much more attention to this than it might have otherwise received. These debates can't be argued here in the forums, they almost always go south. Is every person in the IRG a terrorist? I highly doubt it, even if most of them are. The Shah was no saint, and from their point of view, especially if they know nothing else, Iran is their "United States" and their home. That in no way justifies terrorism, and I am certainly not saying Iran is better off today than they were before--I don't live there, so I have no idea. But the people behind the politics regardless of where they live don't have the freedom to complain and censor here the way we can. I think some threads are best left out of these forums, or at least locked by the Mods as soon as possible.That's my two cents...

By simply posting this thread publicly you've added much more attention to this than it might have otherwise received. These debates can't be argued here in the forums, they almost always go south. Is every person in the IRG a terrorist? I highly doubt it, even if most of them are. The Shah was no saint, and from their point of view, especially if they know nothing else, Iran is their "United States" and their home. That in no way justifies terrorism, and I am certainly not saying Iran is better off today than they were before--I don't live there, so I have no idea. But the people behind the politics regardless of where they live don't have the freedom to complain and censor here the way we can. I think some threads are best left out of these forums, or at least locked by the Mods as soon as possible.That's my two cents...

All of the responders have made fair points and deserve a thoughtful response which unfortunately I don't have time to give until tomorrow. But before I head to bed after a long day, I just want to say that if the "Letters to the Editorial Staff" forum isn't an appropriate place to raise a concern like this, I'm not sure why we have it? And I truly hope that the "mods" as you call them won't lock a thread that contains respectful and thoughtful dialogue. I am truly not wanting to start a political argument or even start an argument. I just wanted to raise an ethical issue and see what people had to say. That's why I entitled the thread "Are We Okay With This?" It's an invitation to discuss something on a forum that's dedicated to discussion with the editors of AVSIM. And that's my two cents for now.Ian

I think this is a proper subject for discussion as long as the discussion is conducted reasonably.I dislike the ideas in the orginal post.First, I instinctively object to being expected to conform to the opinions/values/beliefs of others. I am an adult and capable of making my own decisionsSecond, it is subjective. During World War 2 the RAF and USAAF destroyed areas of German cities with a large number of civilian deaths. The Germans had a name for allied aircrew - terrorflieger (terror fliers). I don't think we should call for a ban on Lancasters and Flying Fortresses because of that.I feel this add-on should remain and we, as individuals, should decide whether to download it ot not.

Of course it should be removed.And the ###### ww2 paints.And the allied ww2 paints after all that firebombing over Japan and Germany.Come to think of it, all military paints.And all non military paints too, because you don't have to be military to commit otrocities.I apologize if sarcasm is a bit off-topic and flammatory, but it sometimes is a very effective way of getting your message across.This discussion is hopeless I think. I seriously doubt that repaints on the internet will have any impact at all on... well.. anything. Let it go.

Well, it seems my question has been answered. The consensus is that we are okay with it. I am perfectly happy accepting a clear majority - some of you seemed to think that I was pressing for the file to be banned or immediately removed. That was not correct - I did not request or even want that. I don't like unnecessary censorship either. I just knew that I was uncomfortable with a description of an aircraft as a "freighter" that is used in the real world to provide logistical support to terrorists and wondered if others shared my discomfort. Apparently not, so for me the topic is finished. Like you all, I will exercise my own freedom to choose to download or not download files based on what I think is okay.Just three things I want to say before this thread is done - at least for me. 1. I was not proposing the introduction of censorship into AVSIM. The reality is that we already have it. If someone uses the "F" word or says or does something objectionable, it is censored and so it should be. All I was curious about was whether that same standard might apply to a file that I thought might be regarded by our FS community as ethically questionable. That's why I used the question "Are We Okay With This?" I had my personal views, but wanted to see what the consensus was. The answer seems pretty clear - the "F" word is not okay but portaying an aircraft used to support terrorism as merely a "freighter" is ethically neutral. No problem - I respect the arguments that were made and the clear consensus that was expressed.2. This forum isn't the right place to discuss the morality of war and the distinctions between wars of aggression and legitimate self-defence or methods of waging war that conform to international law and those that don't. But the observatons about Lancasters and B17s perhaps deserves a response if only from the perspective of aviation history. As ugly and repugnant as it may be, the strategic air campaign waged by both sides in WWII can't be equated with "terrorism" regardless of what the propoganda of the day may have called it. (Or the propoganda of revisionist historians today) It should be noted that no Luftwaffe air crew member and no Luftwaffe general was ever prosecuted for war crimes because they bombed Warsaw, Rotterdam or Coventry or any other allied or neutral city because it was recognized that as morally repugnant as it might be, "strategic bombing" was not illegal according to international law of that time. Nor was the allied bombing of Germany illegal, as equally morally repugnant as it was. The only member of the Luftwaffe who was prosecuted at Nuremberg was Goering, and his crimes were those of a political leader of the ###### regime.But there is one distinction between the allied campaign and the ###### campaign. The Luftwaffe's campaign was intended to support an unprovoked war that was being waged against Germany's neighbors with the intent of subjugating them and in some cases, exterminating them. And once those neighbors capitulated, the terror did not stop when the bombing stopped - in many ways it got worse. The allied air campagin was being waged in support of a war intended to liberate those subjugated nations and stop the war of aggression that had been started by a really bad dude and his supporters. The goal was to bring about the surrender of Germany and ending the war by convincing the German people that surrender was a better alternative to continuing to wage a hopeless war. The moment the war ended, the bombing ended. And so did the terror. Humanitarian aid quickly followed. To equate the actions of the crews of those B17's and Lancasters as no different to "other terrorists" is historically ridiculous, unfair to those who risked their lives in a legally sanctioned campaign and IMHO downright offensive. Personally, I find some of the allied bomber leaders to be very unattractive human beings - "Bomber" Harris and Curtis LeMay in particular. But they were not war criminals and what they ordered and what their crews carried out was not criminal according to international law. Whether it worked or not and whether it was morally right are different issues.3. The Iranian Republican Guard may portay itself as a legitimate arm of the Iranian armed forces. The reality is that the IRG is a law unto itself in Iran, controlled by a few powerful leaders and not held accountable by the legal government of Iran because they do not control it. It is involved in illegal activities, as defined by international law. It is a major facilitor of international terrorism. To equate it with WWII's Luftwaffe, or the RAF, or the USAAF or the modern Iranian Air Force is specious. A better analogy would be a really bad dude's SS - also a supposedly legitimate "military force." (And yes, I am familiar with the distinction between the Waffen SS and the general SS - but I think the analogy is still appropriate given the Waffen SS's association with numerous war crimes and support given to the extermination squads in Poland and other nations swallowed up by the Third Reich)Okay guys, thanks for a respectful and intelligent discussion. As far as I'm concerned the purpose for which I started the thread is accomplished. We are okay with it. I accept that. Now I'm going to go fly in the wonderful world of Flight Simulator and go back to enjoying the freindship and courtesy of a wonderful group of people - the AVSIM community.

I think where you lost the argument was in convincing anyone that the IRG is a terrorist organization. By who's definition and what list are you going by?

I think where you lost the argument was in convincing anyone that the IRG is a terrorist organization. By who's definition and what list are you going by?

Oh, just a few of the usual suspects - Institute for Strategic Studies, US Council on Foreign Relations, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the RAND Corporation and unreliable newspapers like the New York Times, Newsweek, Time Magazine, Washington Post, Manchester Guardian - of course completely unreliable sources like the US Senate, US State Department, British Ministry of Defence and Home and Foreign Office, NATO, US Department of Homeland Security, numerous books by a variety of authors and publishers and a few hundred publications you can find with a fifteen minute internet search. What would interest me would be a list of national counter-terrorism agencies who do NOT think the IRG is a supporter of terrorism? If anyone could supply such a list, I would be fascinated to see it. I could guess a few - places where Hamas and Hezbollah are a significant presence, Iran of course.... Iran's Persian Gulf neighbors like the Saudis and UAE and Kuwait? - nope, they are among the deluded nations who list the IRG as providing support for terrorism. BTW, I have not once said they are a terrorist organization, though they are listed as such by a long list of western and Arab states. What I did say was that they provide logistical, intelligence, training and planning support to terrorist organizations.But it's all moot really - I truly wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything nor trying to start, let alone win an argument. I guess I did make the mistake of thinking that the allegations against the IRG were common knowledge and wondered if anyone else on AVSIM was uneasy about them being portrayed as a "freight" operation. It really isn't a big deal to me - I totally agree with the person who said that the existence of a few pixels depicting a virtual aircraft in a flight simulation isn't really something to be upset about.Cheers

Oh, just a few of the usual suspects - Institute for Strategic Studies, US Council on Foreign Relations, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the RAND Corporation and unreliable newspapers like the New York Times, Newsweek, Time Magazine, Washington Post, Manchester Guardian - of course completely unreliable sources like the US Senate, US State Department, British Ministry of Defence and Home and Foreign Office, NATO, US Department of Homeland Security, numerous books by a variety of authors and publishers and a few hundred publications you can find with a fifteen minute internet search. What would interest me would be a list of national counter-terrorism agencies who do NOT think the IRG is a supporter of terrorism? If anyone could supply such a list, I would be fascinated to see it. I could guess a few - places where Hamas and Hezbollah are a significant presence, Iran of course.... Iran's Persian Gulf neighbors like the Saudis and UAE and Kuwait? - nope, they are among the deluded nations who list the IRG as providing support for terrorism. BTW, I have not once said they are a terrorist organization, though they are listed as such by a long list of western and Arab states. What I did say was that they provide logistical, intelligence, training and planning support to terrorist organizations.But it's all moot really - I truly wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything nor trying to start, let alone win an argument. I guess I did make the mistake of thinking that the allegations against the IRG were common knowledge and wondered if anyone else on AVSIM was uneasy about them being portrayed as a "freight" operation. It really isn't a big deal to me - I totally agree with the person who said that the existence of a few pixels depicting a virtual aircraft in a flight simulation isn't really something to be upset about.Cheers

Al responded beautifully the first go 'round. 'Wish I were that eloquent and well spoken. Otherwise, I wouldn't waste my time with some of the other responses to your legitimate and thoughtful post. --though I disagree with censoring to the degree originally mentioned-- You've made a valid point and I believe all of the adults here can sarcastically respectfully agree/disagree. :Tounge:

I think it's worth noting in regard to another argument put forward, that probably one of the chief reasons characters such as Arthur Harris were not tried as war criminals, is because they were fortunate enough to not find themselves on the losing side at the close of hostilities. It is always up to those on the winning side to determine who is and is not a war criminal and what merits punishment, whereas the vanquished are in no position to lay similar accusations, even if to a neutral observer, they might well be justified in doing so.You can find plenty of examples of such military actions by the victors in WW1 and WW2 which would certainly qualify as stepping outside the accepted rules of warfare if you care to look. Clearly there was no shortage of actions by the ##### in WW2 that would qualify as war crimes, but the notion that every move the Allies ever made during WW2 could in no way ever be regarded in a similar light to an observer not interested in cementing an historical justification for their every action is, if we are entirely honest, a bit of a stretch.As much as it is reassuring for one to believe it, warfare, and indeed the politics of ideological conflicts is rarely a simple case of guys in white hats versus guys in black hats. Both sides think they are the ones in the white hat, which is summed up beautifully incidentally, in this very funny sketch:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsNLbK8_rBYAl