And, the syriacs are the Antiochians, http://www.antiochian.org/
FTFY. 
oh no, i knew exactly what i was posting, and as such, fixed the error you have introduced :-P
(also, for the sake of OP, the Antiochians are those who rightly accept Chalcedon, and are in communion with the Orthodox Church, and those who call themselves Syrian do not, and are in communion with the rest of the non-Chalcedonians. and of course, sheenj will rightly take issue with this, because he takes the view of his own church, as he should)
Actually, no, it is not at all accurate to say "the syriacs (sic) are the Antiochians" and then link to the website for the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America.
Both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Syrians referred to themselves as "Syrian Orthodox" in English when first emigrating to North America. Eventually, the disagreement over who can rightly claim that name in English became a legal dispute, and the Court judged in favour of the non-Chalcedonians. They retained the usage "Syrian Orthodox", while the Chalcedonians adopted "Antiochian Orthodox". That's a civil, and not canonical, legal ruling, and perhaps pertains only to the US, but it seems that the Chalcedonian Antiochians went with that usage in English throughout the world, and it has largely avoided confusion.
Around the year 2000 IIRC, the Syrian Orthodox bishops in the US began to push use of the term "Syriac" instead of "Syrian" to highlight the Syriac people, spread throughout the Middle East and the diaspora, instead of a narrow association with the Syrian Arab Republic. This was not followed by a widespread reclaiming of "Syrian Orthodox" by the Chalcedonian Antiochians, nor have they claimed to be "syriacs" (laughable on multiple counts).
I have no issue with clarifying for an inquirer the difference between EO and OO, but redefining commonly accepted naming conventions in order to promote one group which "rightly accept Chalcedon, and are in communion with the Orthodox Church" over another (as if this assertion is so abundantly clear to anyone with two functioning neurons that it defies reason why it should have to be mentioned at all) is not helpful. First of all, you inject polemic into a subject which the OP most likely has little knowledge. Second of all, clicking on antiochian.org will not clarify that "the syriacs (sic) are the Antiochians" because nothing there addresses the issue of "syriacs". Finally, the original poster is Roman Catholic, has expressed happiness with his current faith and no evident interest in converting. His Church accepts both EO and OO as Orthodox, with or without Chalcedon. His desire seems to be familiarising himself with the Christian East without committing a major faux pas, not joining your ax-grinding ministry. Yours could've been a helpful contribution, but not this time.
