Sure, thanks!

Ok thank you, I can die in peace now.

But you are aware that at some point there were natives?

There had to be.

Ok thank you, I can die in peace now.

No you clearly don't understand how illogical that is. There were no people originally inhabiting an area. At all. Then some people arrived. They are the natives.

But those people aren't there anymore. That is what you don't seem to understand. There WERE natives at one point. They don't exist, they were ether forced to move, or left of their own accord. Anyone who comes to that land later is NOT a native, they are an immigrant, coming to already discovered land.

But you are aware that at some point there were natives?

There had to be.

Ok thank you, I can die in peace now.

No, but someone arrived and stayed first, and there was no one permanently there prior.

There was an initial inhabitant. They aren't present there anymore. All modern humans and civilizations are immigrants to their regions. Even the Native American tribes are on other Native American tribes soils now.

No you clearly don't understand how illogical that is. There were no people originally inhabiting an area. At all. Then some people arrived. They are the natives.

But those people aren't there anymore. That is what you don't seem to understand. There WERE natives at one point. They don't exist, they were ether forced to move, or left of their own accord. Anyone who comes to that land later is NOT a native, they are an immigrant, coming to already discovered land.

But you are aware that at some point there were natives?

There had to be.

Ok thank you, I can die in peace now.

>_> you do realise you contradicted yourself. People can't possibly have always been killing for land.

I got my dates wrong on the origins of the Anglo people. I was going from memory at first, then went back to my Roman history books. Sorry about that. Yes, that is right, at some point some group of Homo Sapiens ended up on that land first, but, there is no evidence that they stayed there. All of human history is about cultures moving, expanding, and falling. No where is there any evidence for a culture that was strictly native to the region surviving in that region to modern day.

No, but someone arrived and stayed first, and there was no one permanently there prior.

There was an initial inhabitant. They aren't present there anymore. All modern humans and civilizations are immigrants to their regions. Even the Native American tribes are on other Native American tribes soils now.

No you clearly don't understand how illogical that is. There were no people originally inhabiting an area. At all. Then some people arrived. They are the natives.

But those people aren't there anymore. That is what you don't seem to understand. There WERE natives at one point. They don't exist, they were ether forced to move, or left of their own accord. Anyone who comes to that land later is NOT a native, they are an immigrant, coming to already discovered land.

But you are aware that at some point there were natives?

There had to be.

Ok thank you, I can die in peace now.

There was no one in england before the angles, that's my point.

The Celts had been living on that land for centuries when the Anglo-Saxons invaded and killed and conquered and displaced them.

The Angles were a Germanic tribe before moving the England. That is why English is partly a Germanic language. The name "Angles" comes from Angeln, a region along the Baltic in Germany. Before them in England your had a the Britons and the Celts. Both of those immigrated to England even earlier. NO ONE is native to their land. They moved their, displaced other nomadic people, and stole/killed for their current lands.

>_> you do realise you contradicted yourself. People can't possibly have always been killing for land.

I got my dates wrong on the origins of the Anglo people. I was going from memory at first, then went back to my Roman history books. Sorry about that. Yes, that is right, at some point some group of Homo Sapiens ended up on that land first, but, there is no evidence that they stayed there. All of human history is about cultures moving, expanding, and falling. No where is there any evidence for a culture that was strictly native to the region surviving in that region to modern day.

No, but someone arrived and stayed first, and there was no one permanently there prior.

There was an initial inhabitant. They aren't present there anymore. All modern humans and civilizations are immigrants to their regions. Even the Native American tribes are on other Native American tribes soils now.

No you clearly don't understand how illogical that is. There were no people originally inhabiting an area. At all. Then some people arrived. They are the natives.

But those people aren't there anymore. That is what you don't seem to understand. There WERE natives at one point. They don't exist, they were ether forced to move, or left of their own accord. Anyone who comes to that land later is NOT a native, they are an immigrant, coming to already discovered land.

But you are aware that at some point there were natives?

There had to be.

Ok thank you, I can die in peace now.

I mean istanbul is partially on the west of the bosphoros. What you are going on seems to be old ethnic and linguistic borders of greeks. If you want to go by that isn't the west coast of the anatolia counted as well?

Technically it depends on what side of the bosphoros they come from.

Logically, the land to the west of the Bosphoros should belong to Greece and Bulgaria, but much like in the case of Cyprus, Turkey just won't let it go.

I mean istanbul is partially on the west of the bosphoros. What you are going on seems to be old ethnic and linguistic borders of greeks. If you want to go by that isn't the west coast of the anatolia counted as well?

just like Argentinians thinking they're white.
What people believe in doesn't make it correct.

Damn, this guy is my ex's uncle. Apparently he raised the crows that were in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. They're very well trained

I would imagine so, but I don't have the money for one, but maybe one day.

I never knew that. I bet they love to rip farts in one of those bubbles.

I highly doubt that the molotov thrown was filled with actual alcohol. Much higher chances it was petrol, in which case if the intake sucked in some of it, the engine could easily catch fire and immobilize the tank.

You don't seem to understand how a turbine engine works. It highly pressurizes air , mixes jet fuel in, then ignites it causing a directed explosion. This turns fan blades, turing a crankshaft...then it gets complicated so i will leave it there for i don't want to hurt your non-engineering brain.

Basically, the fire would be sucked into the engine, then get canceled out by an even hotter fire.

Again, a U.S Abrams is built for all of that to not be an issue. Abrams tanks are rarely ever disabled, and only like six or seven tank operators have ever been killed while actually inside a tank.

Doesn't matter what kind of tank it is, a fire will cook an engine.

Petrol Fire + Turbine engine = snuffed out fire.

Yeah, it does matter what kind of tank it is, especially when the tank is built to completely negate the potential of an engine fire, e.g the M1 Abrams.

There have been multiple occasions when small arms fire has punctured fuel storage tanks on an Abrams, causing exactly what they are apparently "built to completely negate."

How often its actually happened compared to how often you act like it happens are two completely different numbers; engine fires that actually do anything happen so rarely its negligible- even the ones you're talking about have happened because fuel was poured into the engine compartment and then ignited after it had soaked its way around, some pissy little molotov isn't going to do anything against the abrams turbine engine.

So fuel that gets into the engine and lights on fire vs a molotov filled with fuel that lights on fire in the engine are two different things? ayy lmao

Yes, they are. One is enough fuel to fill a half litre bottle, the other were the results of spilling ten gallon fuel drums into the engine compartment.

Any source for that?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_M1_Abrams
Citation 29 leads to a powerpoint showing damage done to M1 Abrams tanks during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Slide 5 reads

Externally stored items highly vulnerable to small arms fire
"In some instances, catastrophic losses resulted from burning EAPU material and/or packaged POL products dripping down into the engine compartment catching the engine on fire"

Feel free to download it and check

You mean the citation that leads to a 404 on a french website?