This unprecedented historical discovery will rewrite our history!

The archaeological establishment is scrambling to find some reason to reject and pour scorn on the extraordinary consequences of the excavations now taking place at Gunung Padang in Indonesia.
Since its first exploration by archaeologists in 1914 the site was thought to be a natural hill with 2500 year-old megalithic structures on top of it. But in 2010 geologist Dr Danny Hilman Natawidjaja (who earned his doctorate at Cal Tech) recognized this “hill” as a possible man-made pyramid and began to explore it using ground penetrating radar, seismic tomography, resistivity survey and other remote sensing techniques, as well as some direct excavations and deep core drilling.
The results were immediately intriguing producing evidence of deeply buried man-made chambers and yielding carbon dates going back as far as 26,000 years. This was the last Ice Age when our ancestors are supposed (according to the orthodox archaeological model) to be have been nothing more than primitive hunter gatherers incapable of large-scale construction and engineering feats. Was it possible that geologist Natawidjaja was unearthing the proof of a lost advanced civilization of prehistoric antiquity? Such ideas are heresy to mainstream archaeologists and sure enough the archaeological establishment in Indonesia banded together against Dr Natawidjaja and his team, lobbied the political authorities, agitated locally and succeeded in slowing down, though not completely stopping, the further exploration of Gunung Padang.
Dr Natawidjaja fought back, doing some high-level lobbying of his own, taking the matter to the President of Indonesia himself. There were further delays to do with elections in Indonesia but just a couple of months ago, in mid-August 2014, the final obstacles were lifted and Dr Natawidjaja and his team moved back onto the Gunung Padang site with full approval to go ahead with their work, including permission to excavate the concealed chambers.

Archaeologists were furious and immediately began lobbying to get the work stopped – fortunately to no avail as preliminary excavations have produced results that prove beyond doubt that Gunung Padang in indeed a man-made pyramid of great antiquity as Dr Natawidjaja had long ago proposed. Even the relatively young layer so far excavated (the second artificial columnar rock-layer beneath the megalithic site visible on the surface) has yielded dates of 5200 BC (nearly 3000 years older than the orthodox dating for the Pyramids of Giza in Egypt) and there are firm indications from the original remote sensing and core drilling work of much older layers below. In short, it is now evident to all that the site is vastly older than the 2500 years that archaeologists had insisted upon for decades. Even the most hostile amongst them are therefore now reframing their assessment of the site and referring to it as “a gigantic terraced tomb, which was part of the biggest megalithic culture in the archipelago.”
For a flavor of the sour grapes the archaeological establishment feel towards Dr Natawidjaja and his team see this recent article from the Jakarta Post:
I asked Dr Natawidjaja for his response to the Jakarta Post article and he replied as follows:

“The article has got the story all wrong.  All excavations were supervised by archeologists from Agency for Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites (BPCB) and University of Indonesia.  The excavation sites have also recently been inspected by the Director for Conservation of Archeological Sites (who is the boss of Miss Desril Shanti ), by the head of the BPCB, and by the Minister of Education and Culture himself.  Afterward, they gave a press conference confirming that all excavations are good and proper.  For information, the head of the National Archeological Center, which is the main office above local Archeological Centers including Bandung Archeological Center, is also a member of the National Team for Gunung Padang. The Jakarta Post article is also wrong about the funding.  The Minister of Education and Culture did indeed announce in the press conference that he would allocate about Rp 3 billion for the research but it has not begun to be disbursed yet.  So far, I and my team are still working willingly on our own funding with the help of the soldiers (TNI) who have been working alongside us.  Of course the TNI have their own funding – but not from that Endowment Fund.”

As to the progress of the work at Gunung Padang, Dr Natawidjaja writes as follows:

“The research progress has been being great.  We have excavated three more spots right on top of the megalithic site in the past couple weeks, which give more evidence and details about the buried structures.  We have uncovered lots more stone artifacts from the excavations.  The existence of the pyramid-like structure beneath the megalithic site is now loud and clear; even for non-specialists, it is not too difficult  to understand if they come and see for themselves.    We have found some kind of open hall buried by soil 5-7 meters thick; however we have not yet got into the main chamber.  We are now drilling to the suspected location of the chamber (based on subsurface geophysic) in the middle of the megalithic site.”

 http://fabweb.org/2015/08/13/this-unprecedented-historical-discovery-will-rewrite-our-history/

CASO Statement about UNGASS on Drugs

Dear Decision-makers,

THE TIME OF PEOPLE HAS COME!

In the name of People Who Use Drugs in Portugal (and in the name of us all), we would like to contribute to the public debate on drugs, namely during this important moment: the UNGASS on drugs. Therefore, we believe that the knowledge and experiences from PWUD and their organisations should be taken into account in public debates and decision-making processes.

CASO (Consumers Associated Survive Organised) is a non-profit organisation created in 2007 and formally established in 2010; it is an association that advocates for/promotes healthcare, rights and dignity of People Who Uses Drugs. It is the first and only association in Portugal that is led by drugs users and former drug users. We’ve been working at local, national and international level and our work has been focused in contributing with concrete information on the realities of drug users and drug phenomena, as well as with empirical knowledge to complement academic data, thus helping to improve decision-making.

We believe that the 3 international conventions that configure prohibitionism (the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs [as amended by the 1972 Protocol]; the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances and the 1988 Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) have caused Humankind more harm than good. This legislative framework has lost its ability to operate in our realities in a comprehensive and humanistic way. Therefore, we urge you to promote a thorough reform of the prohibitionism system.

Prohibiting the use of Psychoactive Substances has never stopped Humankind from using them throughout recorded history. The “War on Drugs” and the “Drug-Free Societies” were two big campaigns, supported by moralistic and repressive ideologies, that proved to be incapable of dealing with Drug Phenomena. Beneath a global cover of kindness, these campaigns ended up being against People Who Uses Drugs, their families and friends. These campaigns associated drug users with stereotypes and figures of “evil”, thus creating social representations that highly stigmatise People Who Use Drugs. “Yellow Plague, Chinese and opium”; “Black Devil, cocaine and black people”; “Killer Weed” (a weed that kills the youngsters); “Drugs, Madness, Death” (Portugal) and “The Scourge of Liamba” are some examples of campaigns that generated moral panic and feelings of insecurity in society. To a certain degree, these evil figures and the feelings of insecurity were manipulated and used in political matters, namely in security and healthcare affairs. Scarce resources were made available for the psychosocial support of People Who Use Drugs, their families and friends; and the resources that were actually made available were allocated to reduce drug offer. The majority of funding goes to policies based on moralistic and repressive ideologies, leaving few “leftovers” to the individuals and their specific needs: healthcare, justice, housing, job and education. The self-determination, autonomy, self-knowledge and empowerment for full citizenship are, therefore, compromised in this perpetuating of unbalanced power relationships. This lack of balance conveys the negative message that people are incapable of self-organising, but it also hinders any genuine therapeutic relationship.

Despite all these campaigns, people continue to use psychoactive substances; there are now more users, more diverse patterns of use and more psychoactive substances available. In spite of all the iatrogenic effects (like high prevalence of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis among People Who Uses Drugs), we can’t catch a glimpse of the promises of a “Drug Free World”. In other words, these actions did not achieve their own goals; they were not flexible enough to deal with reality changes and they were a fertile soil to build a gigantic business. Also, they encouraged the development of a gigantic set of devices to manage drug phenomena in healthcare, justice, security, education, child protection, etc.; however, the drug phenomena have resisted to this model and continue questioning our models and challenging societies, searching for other solutions.

Portugal was a pioneer in moving the focus from crime to healthcare solutions; in 2000/2001, the country introduced in a creative and intelligent set of laws that decriminalised the use or possession of any illegal psychoactive substance. These laws, supported by a National Strategy and Plan, were a positive step to protect the health and rights of People Who Use Drugs. In spite of its positive impact, some users ended up trafficking drugs, in order to support their own addiction; this situation led to violent actions and crime. The majority of users don’t know for sure what they’re using and they have to subject themselves to criminal and highly violent environments (both physically and psychologically). Adding to all this, the Government promotes administrative sanctions and refers users to treatment, even if they are recreational users. The bottom line is that the global moral censorship and ideas like abstinence and cure are still dominant.

In addition to this issue, the necessary scale-up and consolidation of projects and services based on Human Rights, Public Health and Multi-Knowledge approaches (like Harm Reduction, Outreach Work, Peer Work and Involvement), has fallen short.

As for the meaningful involvement of People Who Use Drugs, we feel that the Portuguese Model is moving in the right direction, but there’s still a long way to go. For example, we feel that civil society organisations should have been consulted and invited to participate in the preparation for the Portuguese participation in the UNGASS on drugs, for this is a central theme for our community.

We recognise many qualities to the Portuguese Model of Decriminalisation, including its focus on healthcare and not on punishment, the promotion of Harm Reduction projects and also of civil society active and meaningful participation. However, and with so many changes in the world, we feel that it is time for an evaluation and improvement. We fear that this model will lose its operational capacities due to the financial crisis and austerity measures, thus leaving drug users without any type of support.

It is now time to accept the mistakes, to examine facts and evidences and to use this high-level meeting to actively evolve to Humanistic (that actually focus on people, thus promoting their participation in all processes and at all levels) and pragmatic (supported by knowledge from Peers, Harm Reduction and other evidences and a proper needs’ assessments) policies.

A “Drug Free World” is an impossible promise to fulfil. This make-believe “Perfect World” is unattainable and has become an enemy of a “Decent World for Us All”.

The World Governments must have the courage to trust people; to believe that they know what is best for them and that they have the ability to make a decision. Governments and society in general have been entangled in this complex net of interests that does not protect and promote the rights and health of People Who Use Drugs.

We firmly believe that the TIME OF PEOPLE HAS COME!

Nothing About Us, Without Us!

Contacts:

casoportugal@gmail.com

coimbra.morais@gmail.com

Rui Miguel Coimbra Morais

Psicólogo

92 636 90 16

Cannabis Justice and Rights Campaigning

What I would like to see:

OUR Human Rights to grow cannabis and possess cannabis in our Private Lives acknowledged: that is, legal home grown.

OUR Human Rights to choose and practice our personal belief or religion alone or with others to be acknowledged

To me that means:

an end to the prosecution / punishment of people growing or in possession of cannabis for their own use or social sharing

AND

Licensed commercial outlets for quality controlled cannabis for adults with tax on profits and consumer protection regulations and consumption allowed on the premises with the owners permission, similar to Dutch Coffeeshops - cannabis "off-licenses" also ; all with consumer protection and tax on profits

AND

Licensed non-profit private member club premises where cannabis consumers can gather in safety to buy and consume cannabis and socialise. These could be limited to members only and no advertising, with age restrictions (similar to Spanish Private Clubs)

AND

Legal and transparent profit-free collective growing clubs

AND

Natural cannabis and cannabis products to be available free through the doctor's prescription ND NHS

SOME PEOPLE may say that I am a dreamer, sure, that we will never get all that or not for decades at least, that it is asking too much at once ...

But am a CAMPAIGNER who prefers to campaign for what he feels is Right and Just, not based on public opinion or political correctness or even viability..

At 66, who knows how long I have left to see my dream come true.

I consider myself very fortunate not to be bound by the policies or opinions of others.

Cannabis: Medicalisation and Restriction of Rights.

It seems to me that recently more people are saying that they use cannabis solely or primarily as a medicine as if that should give them to right to do something that other people don't have the right to do: many live under the illusions that a "medical cannabis" campaign will lead to legalisation to grow our own cannabis.

 

Take a look at, for example, opium, a class A drug: medical opium = opiates has been available through doctors and pharmacies for many decades, yet the right to grow ones own poppies and make ones own opium, whether for medicine or not, is still ignored by the law.

 

Once the pharmaceutical giants jump on board the medical cannabis bandwagon, there will be plenty of extracts and other products from cannabis available if one can find a doctor willing to prescribe (many doctors in Holland, even, will not). But unlike Holland, we may not have coffeeshops.

 

Then there will be no "excuse", no mitigation, for people that grow.

 

BOTTLE is needed.

 

Groups and individuals need to put themselves aside for a time and all campaign for Justice and equal Rights for all - the right to a private life, to practice our beliefs (alone or with others), the right to property -- for everyone.

 

THEN and only then will those who consider their need to be primarily medicinal relief will be able to grow their own. cannabis.

 

THEN commercial outlets for all adults will follow, with quality control, consumer protection and tax of profits. 

 

THEN doctors will start to issue prescriptions.

 

Pharmaceutical medical cannabis is:

(a) already here (eg Sativex) and 

(b) inevitable.

 

Let the pharmaceutical companies campaign for their profits and by all means advertise medical needs, but don't call that legalisation.

In the name of Justice and equal Rights for all - stop the prosecutions for cannabis.

You know, if they legalised cannabis for all adults, there would be no need to campaign for medical access. depend on ailment and the doctor's opinions (now all doctors in The Netherlands will prescribe Bedrocan cannabis and when they do, it costs more than from the coffeeshop and choice is limited). So we would still have to campaign for everyone else.

What about the children?

Well they would not of course be able to buy if they are not old enough assuming an age restriction, but parents can buy for the older teenagers just as they can legally buy and supply alcohol for them. (the child's age after which parents can legally supply alcohol tothem is 5)

As for medicine for the young - just like other medicines that will be possible of prescription from a doctor.

Once outlets for adults and home growing are legalised, pharmacies and health / herb shops will also be able to supply.

It will save on police and court time, raise taxes on profits, enable hygienic production, packaging and supply with indications of strain and strength, enable credible information and advice at point-of-sale, separate supply from hard drugs, enable consumer protection, increase employment and of course vastly improve access for cannabis as a medicine, relaxant, sacrament ... it will realise our Human Rights and introduce a Just regime for cannabis.

If we all joined together and campaign for everyone, I think we would make more progress over the next few years.

Of course some people will pessimistically speculate "the government won't do that" - well they certainly won't for much longer if people do not unite and put on the pressure!!

Drop the skunk and raise the Justice

Richard Branson thinks skunk is worse than alcohol but hash is safer.

Hash is made from cannabis; the stronger the cannabis and the stronger the hash, if it is made carefully and cleanly; hash is usually stronger, more concentrated, than the plant used to make it.

Skunk was a name given to one particular hybrid which has now been used extensively to produce other hybrids.

The ratio of THC and CBD differs in different strains and hybrids, of bud and of hash made from it.

Some people prefer higher or lower levels of THC and CBD - over the last decade or two, strains with high THC and lower levels of CBD were introduced into a market that was thought to want high THC even at the "cost" of CBD.

THC and CBD are just two cannabinoids in cannabis and have different effects.

More recently, the advantages for many people of the higher CBD level plants has encouraged breeders to change their plants to other strains.

That has nothing to do with the fact that cannabis production and supply are illegal - it has happened also in Holland and countries where cannabis is available.

To suggest that "skunk" is as bad as alcohol is just ignorance - what type of alcohol; what quantity - what type of consumer?

The effects of cannabis are a result of set and setting; yes the chemical constituents, yes the quantity, yes the surroundings, but also very importantly the mental state and mood of the consumer; also whether it is eaten, smoked or vaporised or used with tobacco.

For sure, the variety of cannabis strains available is less under prohibition than where supply is legal or tolerated (USA, Spain, Holland, for example). People have less choice and are more likely to be offered be offered contaminated cannabis or cannabis of unknown strength, or even other drugs, under prohibition. But in those places many users still choose the high THC low CBD varieties that others may not.

There is no way to protect consumers under prohibition and prohibition actually increases risk of and actual harm.

BUT IS ANY OF THAT RELEVANT TO THE LAW?

To the question: SHOULD A DRUG USER BE PUNISHED IF THEY HAVE DONE NO HARM?

Unless legalisation includes controls on strains, which would not make sense, it would not stop the stronger varieties being sold but would give people more choices.

No Victim No Crime; Justice for cannabis users. Drop the word skunk."

https://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/the-dangers-of-skunk-and-live-events?fb_action_ids=959761417423699&fb_action_types=og.comments

Strange about the UK Governments, Cancer Research and cannabis? Oh how they tell lies.

 This nonsense below from Northern Ireland: IF indeed the possibility of harming some people was a good reason to prevent others from benefitting from a medicine, few medicines would be allowed.

"The Home Office said the government has no plans to legalise cannabis or change its approach to its use as medicine.

"The Minister for Preventing Abuse and Exploitation, Karen Bradley, said: "There is clear scientific and medical evidence that cannabis is a harmful drug which can damage people's mental and physical health, and harms individuals and communities."
 
Strange that claims that cannabis can halt or cure cancer have been made for over 40 years and NOW the big rich charity says they are now supporting "trials" using "cannabinoid-based drugs"

They OUGHT to have been demanding trials for many years - they ought to looked at the anecdotal evidence long before now - meanwhile many sick people have been facing "trials" of an entirely different and totally unjust manner.

"A spokesperson for Cancer Research UK said: "We know that cannabinoids - the active chemicals found in cannabis - can have a range of different effects on cancer cells grown in the lab and animal tumours.

"But at the moment there isn't good evidence from clinical trials to prove that they can safely and effectively treat cancer in patients.

"Cancer Research UK is supporting clinical trials for treating cancer with cannabinoid-based drugs in order to gather solid data on whether they benefit people with cancer."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-35545292?post_id=10205738696414460_10205738696334458#_=_

LINKS
END OUR PAIN CAMPAIGN

Even the US National Cancer Institute admits that cannabis kills cancer cells

 

US government says cannabis kills cancer cells 

US Government’s medical marijuana patent

Marijuana cures cancer; US government has known since 1974

For your entertainment: ALL ABOUT MY HAT - THE MOVIE - THE HIPPY TRAIL 1972

Myhat and I present a short movie for your entertainment

https://youtu.be/kv35xv-Okvw

Nick Clegg and the Rights of Doctors to Prescribe Cannabis for pain

Mr Clegg ought to wake up and start demanding that the government respect the human right to a private life, quality of life and personal beliefs and stop arresting those that have done no harm but choose to grow and possess cannabis in their homes - surely it should be about the Rights of all people, not the rights of doctors?

or does he or anyone think ill people should have greater rights than well people?

why should people have to go through a doctor to get a plant?

Nick Clegg: Give doctors the right to prescribe cannabis for those in real pain
Evening Standard, 21 January 2016

 

Thousands of Britons suffer from chronic conditions but face breaking the law to get treated. That must change 

 
Imagine being in constant pain, so much so that you can’t work, you can’t walk around town, you can’t lift things, you can’t even find a restful position to sleep in. Imagine that every medicine your doctor prescribes to you is either too weak to make a difference or comes with crippling side effects.
Now imagine knowing there is a medicine available that can ease your pain, allow you to work, move around relatively comfortably and help you sleep through the night. But there’s one downside: it’s illegal.
What do you do? Do you live with the agony and fatigue or break the law?
That’s the desperate dilemma that tens of thousands of British citizens face because it is illegal for doctors to prescribe medicinal forms of cannabis to their patients, despite mounting evidence that it can be an effective treatment for certain illnesses.
Last month, I met half a dozen young campaigners from the United Patients Alliance who suffer from a range of chronic conditions, including multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, arthritis and epilepsy. Each one was bright, articulate and desperate to be able to get on with their lives.
Faye, a corporate PA for a big company who was diagnosed four years ago with rheumatoid arthritis, is about as far away from the cliché of the layabout pothead as you can possibly imagine. An ambitious, outgoing and highly able young woman, the pain threatened to derail the career she had been building since the age of 16. She tried a number of prescription medicines but they came with a range of nasty side effects, from hair loss to constant nausea, that often left her too ill to work.
Four years later, her career is back on track. She makes her own cannabis-based skin cream that she can use at work, which has no psychoactive qualities and can easily be disguised so that no one knows she is using cannabis. To her colleagues, it looks like she simply keeps a small jar of normal hand cream on her desk. As a result, she told me that she can “live my life as I used to four years ago”. But she does so at great expense and at the risk of a criminal record. She is also forced to put herself into potentially difficult situations in order to obtain the cannabis she needs.
Kieran, a self-employed plasterer who has had epilepsy since he was a teenager, told me that cannabis massively reduced the frequency of his seizures. At its worst he could have five or six seizures a week but, thanks to cannabis, he has gone as long as a year without one in the past.

Jake, who was born with a diaphragmatic hernia, told me that he lives with such intense pain that a doctor once suggested he use methadone, the heroin substitute used to wean addicts off the drug. He was also prescribed Sativex, one of the very few cannabis-based medicines available in the UK, but found it wasn’t strong enough and acted only as an anti-spasmodic, not a pain reliever.
Weighing barely seven-and-a-half stone, “which is heavy for me”, he said cannabis not only eased his pain but had the added effect of helping him to keep his food down — a rare medical upside to getting the munchies — but it costs him an eye-watering £200 to £300 a week, a price so high that even with the financial support of well-wishers he is frequently left in chronic pain.
As they went around the table, each of these young campaigners told their own heartbreaking story. None of them want to break the law. None of them want to rely on drug dealers or fund organised crime. All want to work and live healthy, productive lives.
There is, of course, a much wider debate about cannabis and other drugs. My strong view is that we too often treat users and addicts as criminals to be punished, rather than people who need support. I want to see drug addiction treated as a health issue, not a criminal justice one. We should be putting our effort into going after the gangs who traffic and deal illegal drugs, not the people who use them.

'We should be putting our effort into going after the gangs who traffic and deal illegal drugs, not the people who use them'

Above all, we need to base drugs policy on the evidence of what works — and what the evidence shows is that a less draconian approach can have real health benefits. In Portugal, where those who are caught in possession  of drugs are directed into health or education services rather than the courts, there have been dramatic reductions in addiction, HIV infections and drug-related deaths. In other words, you don’t need criminal penalties in order to intervene and change people’s drug habits.
There are also a host of fascinating experiments happening in a number of US states — licensed outlets can sell cannabis legally for recreational use in Washington, Colorado, Oregon and Alaska. In Uruguay, the state controls the production of cannabis and sells  it over the counter. British drugs reformers will watch these experiments closely to see how successful they can be in reducing drug use and health problems.
But while I hope we in Britain will eventually take a more enlightened approach towards drugs policy more generally, I accept that it will remain a controversial issue for the foreseeable future.
Whatever your views on wider drug use, however, one area where the time has surely come to move on is prescribing cannabis for medicinal purposes. That’s what already happens in Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Israel and half the states in the US, so we would hardly be risk-taking pioneers.
Surely we can agree that doctors prescribing something as a medicine should be considered a separate matter entirely?
The young people I met deserve compassion and support, not criminal records or a lifetime of pain. Allowing doctors to prescribe cannabis to patients whose chronic pain cannot be adequately eased by other medicines is common sense. It’s time we made it legal to do so.

 http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/nick-clegg-give-doctors-the-right-to-prescribe-cannabis-for-those-in-real-pain-a3161896.html

Warmongers - #NOTINMYNAME STOP BOMBING SYRIA

As far as I am concerned they can all think what they like, say what they like, write what they like and all based on their beliefs, just so long as they don't pretend to be my friends.

You all must know my feelings by now - warmongers are not my friends any more than are murders.

I passed through Syria in 1972, a long time ago, and found people mostly hospitable and friendly if not wealthy. It is mostly desert towns with just a few larger cities. 

I crossed the border to Iraq and arrived at the village of  Al Qa'im, which has been totally destroyed and is now army barracks and oil worker accommodation; they villagers there, simple folk, showed great hospitality and generosity to what must have seemed weirdo's from the West. Baghdad was also a great place. 

I think many of the people I met are either dead or refugees now. 

Over the last few decades, Syria let in millions of refugees fleeing from the bombs in Iraq and troubles in Turkey, Lebanon and so on. 

Now they and their hosts have been scared by all sides so that they flee again. All sides knew that would happen. That is what was happening was no reason to kill and scare them even more.

The so-called terrorists are on all sides, the Syrian government, external governments from thousands of miles away now overhead bombing them, the ISIS or whatever name we want to give them, It's as if they are trying to clear Syria of people. It is an important stepping stone to oil and what the West seeks is that steeping stone.

There have been terror attacks in many countries in the world, so often committed by people from the very same countries they kill in. We bomb or do not bomb based purely on a semi-hidden but obvious agenda that our government and seemingly opposition parties support.

When you see UK troops on the streets of one if not the most surveyed spied upon countries in the world, housing and protecting the super-rich whilst people sleep on the streets with benefits removed, inadequate schooling and health care, where most of the people live in fear of somebody and the vast majority do not support their government...

...then that is a tyranny, then you will surely know that it has never been the IRA, Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, Saddam, Qaddafi, IS, or anyone outside the UK that has caused the problems. 

It has always been the UK and other Governments. Now they call it war, yet the "rules" of war are irrelevant because we are not at war against Syria; we are just bombing them for our own reasons and it is clear enough that Cameron either does not himself really understand or that he is simply telling porkies.