User talk:Asm ccc

Defend the Truth
I really doubt that you are in fact a professor, you lack many discussion skills that many educated peoples have. You have proven in more than one occasion that you cannot hold a proper and formal discussion. I also believe that you are the same person with many usernames which is against wikipedia policy. You clearly have an agenda (anti-assyrian) and try to convince others other to follow your side because you are a "professor". If it is not too much trouble can u please tell me what your field of study was, in which university, and what degree you obtained? Malik Danno (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Horse play
Shlama. Please not that this is an encylopedia and not a place to play games. Continious of this behavior will lead to your username getting banned. Further more, I am not the only Chaldean Catholic that thinks were Assyrian. User:Sargonious and User:EliasAlucard are also Chaldean Catholics and consider themselves Assyrian too. Please realize your little theory does not expand beyond Australia and US. Pshena. Chaldean 00:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC) test

Well you know what, i know that many Chaldeans believe in my theory, and it will be my duty to make sure the world knows the truth, people like you makes it difficult, however, ill make sure every Chaldean should know who she or he is.

Asm ccc 11:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a Chaldean that does not believe we should be named Assyrians. It is such a shame that people have no dignity about their own culture and turn against their nationality. And also, you can call yourself Assyrian.. but think about it when have the Assyrians ever called themselves Chaldean. Its a shame people fall down into a trap so easily and turn against their culture. However, I am not one to judge I am just writing my opinion on this matter to hopefully make sense to people that do generally call themsleves Assyrian when really Chaldean. Asm ccc thanks for the great debate you put up it was really good and all Chaldeans i'm sure are very proud of you.

Andrew.Hermiz 4:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * all Chaldeans i'm sure are very proud of you. not the ones in Iraq and Iran, thats for sure. Chaldean 17:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hermiz, akhoun, the fact that Assyrians never called themselves Chaldean says nothing about the true ethnicity of Chaldeans. That statement makes the whole identity crisis seem as if it's an issue of reciprocity, when really it's not. Assyrians never called themselves Chaldean because they were never Chaldean. Many Chaldeans of today are ethnically Assyrian, not all. But many things in history have occurred that have obscured that truth, such as Arabization (I mention Arabization because many Chaldeans and even some Assyrians wrongfully refer to themselves as Arab), and the schism within the Assyrian Church of the East some 500 years ago. Since then, over the dozens of generations, that truth has been lost. I respect your opinion, however. You have a right to call yourself whatever you want.Šarukinu 22:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Assyrians
There were many instances where Assyrians were continuously documented in history after the fall of Nineveh. The Persian army had used Assyrian soldiers; the Roman empire, under Trajan, had a province of Assyria in Northern Mesopotamia (where Assyria was traditionally located). After the time of Christ, Assyrian missionaries were very active and reached as far as India and China. Assyrians never disappeared. Yes, it's true that the nationalistic movements of the 20th century were very sudden, but that was because of growing western interest in Mesopotamia.

I'm guessing that your main argument is that after the fall of the Assyrian empire, Assyrians were completely wiped out? That's the most primitive idea you can believe. Most Assyrians were peasant farmers living outside of the destroyed urban centers such as Nineveh, Dur Sharrukin, and Kalhu. Most of Assyria (or Northern Mesopotamia), unlike the rest of Mesopotamia, was located within the dry farming zone (meaning that there could be agriculture without irrigation). There is much archaeological evidence that suggests agriculture existed in Northern Mesopotamia since agriculture was first invented.

So what does that mean? Basically, the non-urban areas of Assyria were most likely continuously inhabited (by Assyrians) due to their agricultural significance. Never has it been documented in history that military campaigns (be it by the Persians, Romans, Arabs) took place in these large farming areas - it wouldn't make sense to waste manpower on peasants. If you were an emperor, you would be stupid to send your armies into the farmlands, because there are no administrative centers, no significant authorities, and no spoils of war. In stead, what you do is send your armies to the main urban cities, where you overtake the administrative centers, and control the bureaucracy. Being a professor who's interested in the Near East, you should have known that. ;)

And also, it wasn't just an Assyrian dynasty - it was a full-fledged empire, the first true empire the world had seen. The ancient Assyrians controlled virtually all of the Near East, so to say it was just a dynasty is a huge understatement.Šarukinu 00:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My main argument is not that after the fall of the Assyrian empire, Assyrians were completely wiped out, this rateher sounds very similar to your friend chaldean's previous argument where he said, Chaldeans assumalated into arabs and persians. Before you put words in claiming that i have stated and make fun of them, you should look at your fellow assyrians arguments about chaldeans. Cause this doesnt make me look stupid, it just you who prove that your friend Chaldean isnt as clever as he believe he is. About these farming areas, if they were so large and so productive, dont you believe that that the foreign nations would have taken a lot of interest in these places and made sure that they put in heavy taxes or made sure they had total control and taken out the inhabitants of the area, and about my few spelling errors, let us have this debate in the language i have studied most, norwegian, and then we will see if i am a professor or not.

Asm ccc 04:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Khon Sarukinu, if he was a professor in Australia, then he would at least know how to speak proper English. Asm ccc, to answer you question of When was the word Assyria first used after the fall of their dynasty that you have brought up here, here, and here; Assyria remained a province under the Persian empire between 500 BC all the way up to 100 BC, then after it became a province of the Roman empire - Assyria (Roman province). How do we know that Assyria was not gone after 612 BC and remained a province under the Persians? The Behistun inscription of Darius in the beginning of his rule (500 BC) lists 23 countries as part of his empire including: "Persis, Huza (Elam), Babiru (Babylon), Athura (Assyria)...." - Here is the book []. So now tell me, after Jesus was born, when was the first time the word Chaldean was mentioned? Show me one book, one source that states their were a group of people that called themselves Chaldean before the Catholic Church was formed in 1553. Chaldean 00:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"The Behistun inscription of Darius in the beginning of his rule (500 BC) lists 23 countries as part of his empire including: "Persis, Huza (Elam), Babiru (Babylon), Athura (Assyria)...." That was your quote, well let me tell you something, The 11th dynasty of the Kings of Babylon (6th century BC) is conventionally known to historians as the Chaldean Dynasty Chaldea, meaning that whoever talked about the Babylonians after the 11th dynasty of Babylon, they were talking about the Chaldeans, so 23 of these countries were Babiru (Babylon) which they were refering to the neo babylon meaning that the inhabitants were Chaldeans. So just as the Assyrians, Babylon was one of the 23 countries part of the Persian empire, and just as a reminder, Assyria was fallen long before the Persian empire, while Chaldea lost their independance after the Persian empire was established.

And you asked me indentify someone who called himself Chaldean before 1553, well Patriacrh Timeotheus 1 identified himself as Chaldean and ruler of the Chaldeans and that was in the 9th century AD, who was the first Assyrian Patriacrh and when was he around, and when i mean Assyrian Patriacrh i dont mean Nestorian

124.184.200.11 01:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Asm, the way you control the farming areas is to control the nearest site containing temple administration. I'm sure you know that in ancient times, all of society was based around these temple systems, whereby nearly all resources were processed. The surplus from these farming areas, in addition to other resources, would be given to the temple administration to be used to fund the state. Therefore, by controlling the local temple sites, you would control the adjacent farming areas. It would be very detrimental to your economy to deport the already extensive working class from such critical areas, only to have hundreds of thousands of other peasants imported from another region - it's a huge waste of time and resources. The problem with people like you is that you always think in terms of pure military might, but you ignore the most important concepts such as economy.


 * As for the Chaldean dynasty, there are no sources which dictate that all of Babylonia (or Southern Mesopotamia) was of Chaldean descent. The ruling class was Chaldean, but the majority of the population was not. It's similar to the Kassite dynasty in Babylonia in the late 2nd Millenium BC - the fact that they ruled southern Mesopotamia did not necessarily imply that all of its inhabitants were of Kassite descent.


 * And my concern is not with Chaldean, who is actually very educated in this subject matter. My concern is with you trying to undermine a nation, which has been continuously documented even after the fall of their descendents' empire. The evidence is there, and you know it. Whatever your personal vendetta against the Assyrian people may be, it has no place on Wikipedia. We're here to offer scholarly information, not to pursue our political agendas. Either provide real evidence that contradicts evidence for the legitimacy of the Assyrian people, or accept the fallacies in your claims.Šarukinu 16:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Asm ccc, so now you are Babylonian? Where is the babylonian state in the AD time? Who called themselves Babylonian? Where is the group? while Chaldea lost their independance after the Persian empire was established. - where is Chaldea? How come their was no geographical area called Chaldea at any time in history? Even during Chaldean dynasty, the place was called Babylonia. So tell me, how come Chaldeans in the middle east dont believe they are a separate ethnicity? (which means they have not thought so either since the formation of the church.  9th century AD, who was the first Assyrian Patriacrh and when was he around, and when i mean Assyrian Patriacrh i dont mean Nestorian - and this sentence doesn't make sence at all. And yes Asm ccc, all nestorians in Mesopotamia were Assyrian, that is how it is proven that Chaldean converts were originally ACOE members. And if your asking why my username is Chaldean, well I take pride in my Catholic faith. And this statement of yours; Chaldean_warrior, and [Catalyst in Society] username edited re username change Coppertwig (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC) they both support my theory is veryy silly of you. 15 year olds? Come on man, read books and bring sources to the table. Chaldean 17:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Continued existence of the Assyrian people
Here is some more evidence suggesting the continued existence of Assyrian people after the fall of the empire:

''Assyria's heartland lost it's urban characteristics, and the remaining population lived in small settlements on top of massive mounds. In certain Syrian cities Assyrian administrative practices were continued, but the king of Babylon was acknowledged as the new master.''

Thus, life in Assyria continued, which in the rural areas most likely would have continued as normal.

"What about the Persians..." you might ask. If you think they would have deported them in mass numbers or tried to assimilate them into Persian culture, think again:

''The Persian empire was at the same time highly centralized and respectful of the multiplicity of the people it governed. It was the first empire that acknowledged the fact that its inhabitants had a variety of cultures, spoke different languages, and were politcally organized in various ways... On several other reliefs the throne of the king is carried by people identified by trilingual inscriptions as Persian, Mede, Babylonian, Assyrian, and so on.''

As you should know, the Persian empire was known for its tolerance of its conquered people's traditions and native governing styles. When Cambyses conquered Egypt, for example, he adopted an Egyptian thronename, so as to appeal to Egyptian people. When Cyrus conquered Babylon, he also took part in Babylonian religious rituals, fulfilling the traditional role of Babylonian king, again in an attempt to gain the favour of the people. So as you can see, the Persian rulers were very concerned with satisfying the people they conquered, so as to reduce the risk of rebellion.

With regards to the Assyrians, their treatment was not likely to have been any different.

Šarukinu 18:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop wasting my time, I never said that assyrians didnt exist, i just asked a question and you throw all this useless information about Persia and Egypt. As you should know, the Persian empire was known for its tolerance of its conquered people's traditions and native governing styles. well who do you think conquered the neo babylonian empire, it was the persian empire, and the majority of the time it stayed under Persian control, your friend Chaldean stated that the ancient Chaldeans assumalated into Persians, well you just proved him wrong by supplying me with this excellent information.

Asm ccc 00:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So now you're trying to change your position? Asm ccc, you're wasting your own time. You and I know very well that you were implying that Assyrians today are not the descendants of the ancient Assyrians.
 * You know that the Assyrian dynasty was destroyed and it's people were forced to flee, what happened to Assyrians and Assyria, when was the first time the term Assyria or assyrian was used after the fall of their dynasty. It is no data about what happened to the Assyrians nor Assyria, dont you think that it's weird that so many people dissapear for such a long period and then suddenly just come back
 * Your main argument (above) was that all Assyrians were either destroyed or forced out of their lands - I discounted that argument with the evidence I provided. It's obviously not useless, because it proved you wrong, and you referred to it yourself as "excellent information". A large part of supporting arguments is providing valid examples, which is what I did - so don't try to make it seem like I'm throwing random arguments out there. Šarukinu 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

''so now you are Babylonian? Where is the babylonian state in the AD time? Who called themselves Babylonian? Where is the group? while Chaldea lost their independance after the Persian empire was established. - where is Chaldea? How come their was no geographical area called Chaldea at any time in history?'' "It does not explictly address the question of how these groups came into being, but apparently accepts the common view that both Aramaeans and Chaldeans were intrusive in Mesopotamia. Why not see them as indigenous?... There appears to be no good reason to believe that the Chaldeans did not emerge on southern Mesopotamian soil from the population already inhabiting that land. The proportion of West Semitic names attested for individuals identified as Chaldeans is too small to justify identifying the entire group as of West Semiticcorigin, while the observed degree to which Chaldeans were'Babylonianized' (Frame, p 37) probably indicates that they were as 'Babylonian' as anyone else to begin with" link title all the evidence you need is right there. I thought you should have known this, Chaldeans were Babylonians, they were one of the many tribes of Babylon, the reason why the term Chaldean is more commonly used than Babylonian is due to their success of regaining back the lost empire. I consider myself Babylonian as well as Chaldean, I never knew a person like you who tries to act intellegent, needed to be explained this too.

Let me ask you two questions, have you hears about the Han dynasty and about the silk road????? If you do, you should have know that there was a georgraphical area called called Chaldea, however the Chinese call it Tiaozhi link title Now you are probably thinking, what about Babylonia, well the Chinese considered us as Chaldeans, and that is one of the many factors why most of today's Babylonians call themeselve Chaldeans, however, the Persians, didnt call us, today's Chaldeans by the same name as the Chinese, they called today's Chaldeans Babylonians, mainly due to the extra credit they would receive of putting an end to the allmighty Babylonian empire and not only the strong neo Babylonian empire, and also due to the fact when Persia and Medes conquered Babylon, Babylon was known to have the greatest army in all of the middle east.

Asm ccc 01:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The two paragraphs you just typed above aren't making a whole lot of sense, and the references you are providing don't work - please fix them. The idea that another nation refers to all of Southern Mesopotamians as Chaldean (which I will address shortly) does NOT render them all Chaldean. Chaldeans were a Babylonian tribe, as you said. They rose to political prominence in the 1st millennium BC, and as a result their Chaldean dynasty ruled Babylonia for a short period of time. Even the term Babylonian isn't generalizable. The term Babylonia was coined by Greek historians, based on the capital city Babylon (Babel). The Babylonian kings didn't even refer to themselves as Babylonian; in stead, they would refer to themselves as kings of "Sumer and Akkad", as the term Babylonia didn't exist for centuries after the Babylonian empire was taken over by Persians.


 * And if you do the appropriate research on Tiaozhi, you'll know that the definition is still contested. Most scholars will agree that it simply pertains to the land "West of Parthia", not specifically Chaldea. I would suggest looking up real scholarly information, such as journals and other peer-edited publications, because it seems as if though you're basing that argument on a single Wikipedia article.


 * Which brings me to my next point: the sources on Wikipedia are NOT always reliable. If you're basing your arguments on Wikipedia articles, then your arguments are no more credible than they are comprehensive. As for Babylonia having the greatest army in all the Middle East, that's also a misconception. They were more known for their intellectual achievements rather than military achievements. After they destroyed Nineveh, they were still confined to Mesopotamia (both North and South), and would never extend their empire to the previous extent of the Assyrians.Šarukinu 20:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Šarukinu 22:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Nestorian Church
all nestorians in Mesopotamia were Assyrian, that is how it is proven that Chaldean converts were originally ACOE members. that is the biggest lie i have ever heard. And the reason why you think Chaldeans are Assyrians is because of this false statement. I hope you know this that until the 12th century AD the majority of Iraq were Christians, I doubt that only existed of Assyrians do you know why?? Not all Assyrians lived in today's Iraq, they were spread all around the middle east after the fall of their empire. Many Assyrians fled to the Hakkari mountains (in today's turkey, and others also fled to other countries like Syria. I find it very hard to believe that even when not half of the Assyrian population lived in Iraq they still could make up the majority of the citizens of Iraq, are you being bribed or something cause you know yourself that a people cant just dissapear, and the Babylonians, never had the time to flee from their empire cause they never had the idea the Medes would backstabb them and allie themeselve with the Persians. Your username is named after your faith, well if you believe so much in your faith open the Bible to Daniel 5: 5-30 and it will prove to you that there was no major batlle between Persia and the Medes against the Babylonians cause they were caught by suprise. You probably thinking what does this have to do with nestorians, well it only proves that no massacres took place when Babylonia was conquered, and that the Babylonians still lived in their ancestors land. Babylon had its province under the Persian empire, Ssanien empire and the Seleucid empire, these were the only empires that took control over the land of the Babylonians until the Muslim invasion, which then the Nestorian Church was established and the Chaldeans were a part of it.

Answer me these question, under what empire was the Nestorian Church established?? I really hope its not to hard for you to answer with your bias.

Asm ccc 03:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * With regards to this; to call themeselve pure blooded Assyrian. - nobody is claiming to be pure blooded Assyrian. The Greeks are not pure blooded. The Arabs are not pure blooded. The Persians are not pure blooded. Nobody is, its silly to think that. Anyways, have fun with your sandbox. Chaldean 06:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You only answered me one of my many questions, does that mean that you cant answer the rest????

Asm ccc 06:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No it means your boring me to death with your elementary arguements. Chaldean 05:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This is wikipedia, i wouldnt be suprised if you were a teenager by your "smart" comments, now answer my questions if you can cause i am sure i have won this discussion easily.

Asm ccc 10:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Asm, what exactly is your point? Šarukinu 20:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Aramaic Wiktionary
Seeing your knowledge in Aramaic, I believe that you may be interested in something that has been recently proposed on Meta. :-) אמר Steve Caruso ( desk / AMA ) •  Give Back Our Membership!  05:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Incase you didn't read this on the Chaldean page...
First and formost none of the "Assyrian" or "Chaldean" Kings ever referred to themselves as such. They all referred to themselves as Kings of "Sumer and Akkad." Assyrian was coined by the Greeks to refer to those whom held Ashur as the supreme diety in the land of Sumer and Akkad for example as the Jews referred to southern Mesopotamia as "Shinar" which meant "land of the moon god." "Babylonia" was also coined by the Greeks to refer to southern Mesopotamia which had its "capital" in Bab-ilu aka Kadingirra aka "Babylon." Just as people in ancient Sumer and Akkad referred to themselves by the city-state they inhabbited so do the modern people, they refer to their ethno-religious group by village and/or national proximity. "Chaldean" was also coined by the Greeks to refer to the last indegenous conquerors of "Babylonia." In reality in the Syriac language we ALL refer to ourselves as Sourayeh or Souryoyeh which is simply translated as Syrian in English which itself is Greek-derived from the designation of the former colonial territories of Assyria for they referred to Sumer and Akkad as Assyria and its colonies (Aram and Canaan) as Syria. That is it in a nutshell. We are Sourayeh/Souryoyeh and ultimately we are Assyrian, Babylonian, and the Sons and Daughters of the fusion of Sumer and Akkad. We are Chaldean as well and we are Aramaean as well. However if you want to get into semantics some hold the God Ashur as one with the Christian God Yah(weh) which himself started out as the Canaanite equivelent of Ashur, the "sky axle" therefore in that sense we are the true "Assyrians" in an ethno-religious sense. The Tsar is Gone but I am King 15:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Chaldean is Greek-derived from the Akkadian_language form of "Kaldu" which in Hebrew is "Kasdu" which may even be a refference to the Kassites whom once ruled Babylon well before the "Chaldean Dynasty." It was also used interchangebly with "Astrologer" in which Astrology was key in the Mesopotamian religion so even in that sense we are true "Chaldeans" as well for Judaism is a monotheistic religion that originated in Mesopotamia and gradually evolved into Christianity and even Islam.The Tsar is Gone but I am King 17:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, Assyrian kings did in fact refer to themselves as "Šar Mât Aššur", or "King of Assyria" as part of their royal titulary, in addition to "king of Sumer and Akkad". So there was definitely the mindset of an Assyrian identity. I'm not sure if that's what you were arguing against, but I thought I'd raise that point.Šarukinu 01:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * True but the Empire as a whole starting with Sargon was Sumer and Akkad which encompassed Ashur and later Nineveh. Assur was under the helm of Akkadian dominance prior to its own locals taking command of the empire generations later. As I've stated in the Assyrians page "Akkadians were the ruling class of the Assyrians, those whom followed Ashur and were from AshurThe Tsar is Gone but I am King 18:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

My friend Sargonius, i think you need a wikibreak cause you cannot make up your mind, you waste your time writing your opinion just to realise that it was all wrong and then you rewrite it, do some research before you write anything ok, cause this only prove how unreliable it is to listen to your funny stories, but dont worry, they are great for entertainment.

Proffesor Marco Asm ccc 04:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

hi about your question
the word chaldean, before 600 and later is known as astrologys, scientits. (keepers of the old knowledge).

The assyrian church changed its name in 1800centry.

both churches and the melkites(rom) and maronites + chaldeans and nestorians come from the same church.

In 1662 when the Patriarch in Diyarbakir, Mar Shimun XIII Denha, broke communion with Rome, resumed relations with the line at Alqosh, and moved his seat to the village of Qochanis in the Turkish mountains. The Vatican responded by appointing a new patriarch to Diyarbakir to govern the Assyrians who stayed loyal to the Holy See. This latter group became known as the Chaldean Catholic Church. In 1804 the hereditary line of Patriarchs in Alqosh died out, and that church's hierarchy decided to accept the authority of the Chaldean patriarchs. The line of patriarchs at Qochanis remained independent.

hope this gives you some answers, if you have any else questions then please dont hesetate to ask. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Suryoyo (talk • contribs) 18:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

So you agree with me that the Nestorian Church was made up of Chaldeans, the melkites and not only the Assyrians were from the Nestorian Church.

Asm ccc 04:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Bold text== let me ask you a question... ==

asm, if you really are a "proffessor at Sydney University", why do you make grammatical and spelling mistakes? I am a cleaner, and I have better English usage as opposed to you! However, I agree with you on the Chaldean issues, and it is a shame my Assyrian brothers can not do the same! Assyrian blood n veins 04:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Good question, everyone makes mistakes except for God. I know several languages, and two of my worst language are Arabic and English. I have not been here for a long time nor am i going to stay her for much longer, the only reason why I am in New Zealand and Austraila is because i was offered a well paid job. Another reason why i have some few spelling mistakes are because

1) I dont have much time, and usually when im on wikipedia its often at night and when i am really tired

2) Because there are people in wiki who really get me angry, they dont know anything but pretends to be Historians.

Proffesor MarcoAsm ccc 06:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 06:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

However, asm, how on earth did you get a job as a "Proffessor", which, which to be blatantly presumed includes lecturing in English?? If you cannot spell or write how do you accurately teach according to basic Australian English standards, on and off the Australian University Cirriculum, and individual succintly written syllabusus? By the way, which Units do you teach?? P.S- My son goes to Sydney University, and is currently undertaking an undergraduate course as a double degree in Major Medicine/ History...... Assyrian blood n veins 00:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Who said i cannot spell nor write, maybe you can write and read, but you have great difficulity in understanding simple concepts, well after all you are a cleaner. As a proffesor, my work is much more important than correcting spelling mistakes, maybe you need to clean up tiny pieces of rubbish and correct the way the chairs are situated, but I don't have time for that and why are we discussing my occupation after all I am not the one earning $10 an hour, however thank you for admitting something many assyrians cannot admitt.

Proffessor Marco Asm ccc 02:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well check again Bani, its funny cause the university of NSW doesnt really give out personal information about visitors who are trying to influence their students with European intellegence. About asm_cc, he is not a high school student but my cousin, the meaning of Asm is significant for our family so before you state something make sure it is correct.

Proffesor Marco Asm ccc 11:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Proffessors are not likely to be called "visitors" are they...Second all, how dare you accuse of lying when I have that staff catalogue right infront of me!!!! Yes you are right that the university will not give out "personal" information, but it does, however give out all the names of all proffessors, along with their uni email address... once again I have to break your poor little heart..Your name is not there!!! Third of all, if your "cousin" asm_cc, is not a high school student then why would he  put a tag on his user page- "this user is a high school student"... Last of all, I wouldn't exactly call someone that cant properly understand my refutes of adeuatly possessing European intelligence..

P.S-wHO IS BANI??? OR THIS SOME KIND OF ANCIENT ARAMAIC WORD???? Assyrian blood n veins 07:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Asm, I wish to ask you something.. Are you Chaldean Catholic, becuase if you are have you heard of the Bishop of Illionios- Bishop George Akkassian Hermiz Jakob, and his brother, Bishop Peter Hermiz Jakob? These two Bishops are brothers and are Assyrian, however, the Bishop Geore converted from the Holy Assyrian Apostolic Church of The East to Chaldena Catholic.Here is one example of people being if Assyrian ethniticy, but Cahldean Catholic aSSYRIAN. i AM nOT, HOWEVER STATING THAT CHALDEANS AND ASSYRIANS ARE THE SAME THING...BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT!!!!! Hi guys, im persian 4 life! I completely agree with users Assyrian Blood n Veins and Asm-ccc.Our peoples are different, but similar, and it's a shame others cant accept it...

Maybe you should take a break...
I didn't "change" anything, I just clarified the texts so there wouldn't be anymore confusion. My point is that Assyria is the historical region in which Assyrians inhabit. The modern "Chaldeans" didn't come from southern Iraq at least not since the Common Era. My point is the modern people weather they call themselves Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs/Aramaeans is irrelevant, they are all the same people to an extent. So you get YOUR facts straight.The Tsar is Gone but I am King 14:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

CHALDEANS RULE I LUV CHALDEA CHALDEANS RULE AND WHO IS THIS ASSYRIANS BLOOD AND VEINS WIERDO PFFFT ALL SHALL HAIL CHALDEANS AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Chaldo gangsta 07:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, do you miss me, i am back to prove the whole world who the real Chaldeans are I hope u miss me cause i really miss you people. Sorry for my absence and i have brought my second cousin which is currently studying Ancient History in University of Stockholm and he will be helping me out to convince. Another member of my new team is actually Assyrian who is a computer engineer, please welcome him cause he is a true Assyrian who knows all about Assyrian History.

Yours sincerly

Professor Marco Asm ccc 06:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"Chaldean Christians"
Are you happy now? Do you know why we Assyrians (that includes you, Mr. "Chaldean professor") don't have our own country today? It's because of people like you, splitting us up all the time and making us fight each other instead of sticking together and helping each other. Thanks a lot. Your contribution to humanity is very much appreciated. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 01:35 19 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, Mr. omniscient Chaldean professor, I just gave you the answers you asked for on Talk:Assyrian people. I sure hope I disappointed you :) &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 09:45 09 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

False Claims about being Professor Marco from the university of New South Wales...
I have checked with the University and there is no professor Marco. Do you feel if you claim to be a professor your word trumps others? That is not true even if you were a professor. Now stop making claims of being something you're not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharru Kinnu III (talk • contribs) 15:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous claims by insufficient people, don't worry about them professor they are just idiotic & stupid in realizing the truth. Thats how people try to get each other by engaging in terror tactics such as the person who started this thread. Don't worry cuz kids will grow up & realize the truth. Your friend KALMANI! KALMANI (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)