THERE have been many accusations from apologists for Washington/Westminster’s Syria invasion plans. These basically accuse those of not being servile enough of being “dupes” and “propagandists” for Putin or Assad.

What the neo-con mouthpieces do is present only the consequences of the Russian/Syrian government bombing. They ignore that the “rebels” in Syria are fanatical al-Qaeda-linked Jihadists. The “rebels” were recruited, armed and trained by the Saudis with direct help from the CIA. They used the Arab Spring to help bring about a more pliant regime in Damascus.

READ MORE: Letters – Spoiling a ballot is always better than not voting

History is repeating itself. In 1957 Harold Macmillan and President Dwight Eisenhower approved a CIA-MI6 plan to stage fake border incidents as an excuse for an invasion by Syria’s pro-Western neighbours, and then to “eliminate” the most influential triumvirate in Damascus.

In 1986 Mrs Thatcher invited Abdul Haq to Downing Street. This Jihadist admitted planting a bomb on a Russian plane in Kabul in 1984. This killed 28 people.

Theresa May went to Saudi Arabia and sold them £3 billion worth of weapons. She defended the sale then suppressed a report on Saudi funding of Jihadists worldwide.

Assad was welcomed by Tony Blair to Downing Street. This was seen by Blair as a business opportunity to sell Assad weapons (including chemical weapons).

Missing from the narrative of Russian aggression is any mention of US/Nato encroachment towards Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union (contravening assurances given to Gorbachev), or the US bases and military exercises close to Russia’s borders as well as globally, or the history of US threats and major crimes around the world.

What is going on in the Middle East today is that Washington, Westminster and their Saudi allies are waging a number of proxy wars in order to control the oil and gas deposits there. It has nothing to do with “human rights”, which are an absurd smokescreen to hide rapacious imperial power.

Alan Hinnrichs
Dundee

FRANK Rodgers (Letters, February 26 and Letters, March 1) is absolutely correct about the very transparent and insensitive rewriting of history by Western media regarding the horrors of Eastern Ghouta. Looking “behind the curtain”, as he suggests, is not difficult. As we know in these parts, “facts are chiels that winna ding”.

It is at least 20 years since “the West” decided on regime change in Syria. The 1998 “Project for the New American Century” (Rumsfeldt, Cheney, Bush etc) set the strategy for US global supremacy and resource control. George W Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address specifically included Syria in his “Axis of Evil”.

Post-9/11 came the endless “War on Terror”. Support for internal insurrection was followed by illegal military intervention in several sovereign states, where anarchy and carnage still prevail today. The February death toll in Iraq alone is estimated at more than 1200. Raqqa, Falluja, Mosul and Libya (bombed by Nato) were “hells on Earth” long before Ghouta. Furthermore, Europe is facing a long-lasting and unquantifiable refugee problem as a direct result of these planned but short-sighted military actions.

One very significant fact: of all the warring factions, Russia is the only one invited to assist this sovereign state against rebel groups and external forces. It is also known that some of these groups – ranging from so-called “moderates” to extreme Islamists – benefit from a supply of modern weapons from external sources. Their missiles still fall on Damascus daily; and since these groups were never included in the truce, they will continue to wage war in pursuit of a “regime change” that has never been the wish of the general population of that land.

Murdo M Grant
Rosemarkie

I FULLY support Frank Rodgers in his long letter. I would add that the absurd impression is given by a West-oriented media that the civilians living in areas controlled by Isis are willing cohabitants, when it is the case that they are captives of the terrorists. Isis entered these communities and urban districts, including Eastern Ghouta, as armed intruders and both pro-West and non-pro-West media have been at one as far as their barbarous acts and atrocities are concerned.

From the outset it has been obvious that the Americans were yet again into the business of regime change and foisting a puppet government on Syria as they have succeeded in doing elsewhere, particularly in Iraq and Libya. This despite the shambles left in both these countries by this effort.

Surely a genuine peace is possible in all of these countries, but not so while America is pursuing its own economic ambitions by covert arming of groups so as to displace legitimate governments. This while being shielded by a media that disgraces its own traditions of telling the truth come what may, as in the instance of Watergate and Richard Nixon etc.

Ian Johnstone
Peterhead