I really struggle to comprehend the "Cyprus is not in Europe" drama. Continents are, by definition, arbitrary. There is no scientific definition of continents that would be completely objective. The line is even blurrier when we talk about the islands as parts of continents. So, you can say "we at JetPunk don't consider Cyprus to be a part of Europe", that is completely fine. But to proclaim as an absolute truth "Cyprus is not in Europe" is just wrong, at least as much as to say it is in Europe. For example, this article: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-continent-is-cyprus-in.html says: "If anything, the country has an interesting story here as to whether it should be placed in Europe or Asia. If we talk about the geographical location of the country, it is very close to Asia in terms of the border, but its history, stories, and cultural heritage have more of a European influence." How did you come to completely ignore one arbitrary definition and vehemently stick by another?
Continents are based on physical geography. If you want to start bringing cultural ties into the equation then you would have to consider whether Australia or Mexico or Brazil are part of Europe. Cyprus is geographically closest to Asia, followed by Africa and in third place Europe.
Just a reminder that Trinidad and Tobago is 11 kilometers from Venezuela, yet Jetpunk has no problem considering it part of North America. So, it's clearly not about physical geography.
Since you didn't get the point: Trinidad and Tobago is a lot closer to South America than to North America, and it's also a lot closer to South America than Cyprus is to Asia.
So, the argument that "continents are based on physcial geography" clearly doesn't seem to apply here.
I don't understand why you would take the time to comment on this quiz when you are just completely wrong. Why not just take the time to look it up before you comment?
it says COUNTRIES, not NATO base regions, now i got 4 instead of 5 points thanks to you not knowing the difference beetwen an occupied region of Serbia and a sovereign country.
Austria was split between The USSR, US, UK, and France they decided to reunite it into a neutral state not joining NATO or The Warsaw Pact and they have stayed by the treaty and have still not joined NATO
Seems strange from modern perspective that Austria and Ireland aren't in NATO. I assume Ireland never joined because of pent up hatred of the UK at the time of NATOs organization and neutrality in WW2 and Austria was too busy trying to survive the first 10 years of the cold war to align with the west. Both now seem unlikely targets of military actions since you'd literally have to go through NATO aligned countries to get to Austria and likely go though NATO airspace to strike Ireland.
So, the argument that "continents are based on physcial geography" clearly doesn't seem to apply here.
just gonna drop this here