Elisabeth: Naver,nrever,nuvvre,irven,renvie!!

[Follow Ups] [Post Followup] [Our Discussion Forum]

Posted by andreas from p3EE3C350.dip.t-dialin.net ( on Monday, December 09, 2002 at 9:06AM :

: Mr Andreas:

+++ Simply call me "SIR".

: Stop, stop all those lies.
: Ashur was never, never Enlil.

+++ Naver, nrever , nuvvre, irven, renvie !!

+++ I only POSTED the one article on Ashur from the Encyclopedia Britannica with the accompanying commentary/question.
I didn't write it.
I wrote only the rest of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

+++ You didn't understood anything it all.

+++ But I wouldn't have expected otherwise from a nut who posts on AINA a text from a GAME selling it as historical information.

+++ Change to milder drugs - like Absinth.

+++ Here is your heroic deed:

1) Assyrian Forum

Nimrod - son of Hem

Posted By: Elizabeth <gertruda90@hotmail.com> (Toronto-HSE-ppp3669004.sympatico.ca)
Date: Monday, 2 December 2002, at 1:01 p.m.

Getting to the roots of ancient and today promblems ?

Nimrod, as history says, had been the king of Assyria but he wasn't Assyrian. Ashur was son of Shem.

Nimrod was son of Hem and grandson of Cush.


Rothschilds claim to be descendents of Nimrod.

2) Peter's response:

Assyrian Forum

Re: Nimrod - son of Hem

Posted By: Peter BetBasoo <keepa@ninevehsoft.com> (miintg5.ameritech.com)
Date: Monday, 2 December 2002, at 1:31 p.m.

In Response To: Nimrod - son of Hem (Elizabeth)

This is from a game. Don't pass this off as history.


+++ Here is the Ashur article again:

Lest the Soap (opera) Subsides: "Ashur" - from the Encyclopedia Britannica

With regard to the short article from the Encyclopedia Britannica on Ashur below:

As is quite predictable - some infuriated Ashur addicts will tell in their powerful retorts that the folowing article is at least:

" Western, esp. British, imperialistic, anti-Assyrian, anti-darkie, anti-Eastern and
above all: "Christian" - whatever some on this forum understand by this term whatsoever and whysoever.

Nonetheless, the simple fact remains that such a portray of "Ashur" is given in
what's deemed to be one of the most respectable encyclopedias - if not
THE most respectable - of the world.
this fact will NOT YET decide anything as to the content of the article, i.e. with regard to its quality or truth or so, but is merely indicative of circulation quantity and publication intensity with - HOWEVER - its ensuing deciding impact on public thinking patterns.

Now, after some tantrums of Ashur worshippers will have been thrown around there will still remain the naked fact that this very "disgusting" article is still in existence and doesn't disappear in their flaming breaths simply by force of their mighty wishful thinking or heroic denial (really a stunning experience to them....).

Thus it could prove wise to face up to this fact and to have a closer look at this strange object of displeasure:

Please note how Ashur is depicted and what notions are attached to him:
- Usurpation of attributes undue and undeserved by him = all a fake up
and lie at all
- lack of genuine substance / character in himself
- a mere projection of worldly power interests of a political entity which exhausted itself in its military, imperialistic and nationalistic design
- all in all even in sharp contrast to e.g. the rich Babylonian culture.

etc. etc.

So, now without any further comment of mine, how do you deal with

a) this info and b) the fact that this info has impregnated the minds of
the widest public ???


Ashur Encyclopædia Britannica Article

in Mesopotamian religion, city god of Ashur and national god of Assyria.

In the beginning he was perhaps only a local deity of the city that shared his name. From about 1800 BC onward, however, there appear to have been strong tendencies to identify him with the Sumerian Enlil (Akkadian: Bel),
while under the Assyrian king Sargon II (reigned 721–705 BC), there were tendencies to identify Ashur with Anshar, the father of An (Akkadian: Anu) in the creation myth.

Under Sargon's successor Sennacherib, deliberate and thorough attempts
were made to transfer to Ashur the primeval achievements of Marduk, as well as the whole ritual of the New Year festival of Babylon—attempts that clearly have their background in the political struggle going on at that
time between Babylonia and Assyria.

As a consequence, the image of Ashur seems to lack all real distinctiveness and contains little that is not implied in his position as the city god of a vigorous and warlike city that became the capital of an empire.

The Assyrians believed that he granted rule over Assyria and supported Assyrian arms against enemies; detailed written reports from the Assyrian kings about their campaigns were even submitted to him.

He appears a mere personification of the interests of Assyria as a political
entity, with little character of his own.

-- andreas
-- signature .

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

E-Mail: ( default )
Optional Link ( default )
Optional Image Link ( default )

This board is powered by the Mr. Fong Device from Cyberarmy.com