I was British ambassador to Syria from 1976 to 1979. I intensely disliked the Ba'ath party and most of the ministers who formed the government then. So I have no bias towards the Ba'ath and the president who took over from his father. The trouble is that most of the reporting from Syria comes from sources stationed among the insurgents, who include, for example, the Jabhat al-Nusra, which has just declared its loyalty to al-Qaida, and extremist Sunnis opposed to the Alawites, the president's sect, and have anti-democratic and anti-western views. They don't enjoy support from minorities like the Christians and the Ismailis.
At last the Guardian has a man in Damascus and can report the regime's version. Ian Black (15 April) is sensibly cautious. His account of the bombing which damaged the central bank clearly suggests that the bomb came from the insurgents; and more frankly he says that another bomb, killing 80 people, exploded near a Ba'ath headquarters and was blamed on Jabhat al-Nusra. Why our government can help the French to fight al-Qaida in Mali and simultaneously send assistance to its supporters in Syria is difficult to understand. We should be neutral and keep far away from the Syrian struggle.
James Craig
Standlake, Oxfordshire
Much of your reporting on Syria could have been written by GW Bush: the same old rebels are good, the Syrian government is bad recipe. The Syrian reality seems a little simpler. Syria is crawling with foreign jihadists and it would be exceedingly naive to assume that the special forces of the countries supplying the weapons are not there also – France, the US, UK, various Arab despots?
Meanwhile, most Syrians in Syria want the killing to stop so they can live their lives without fear. They wanted a negotiated settlement from the Kofi Annan plan, but this was flagrantly obstructed and torpedoed by the west. For Syria read Libya.
Khalid Mahmood-Chohan
Watford, Hertfordshire