William Walker, the first man of the OSCA, has accused (in advance) the Serbian side for the massacre of the "civilians" in Racak village. After the autopsy made by a group of Finish pathologists, it was obvious that those people weren't massacred. What is more shocking is that they were, after the death, dressed in civilian clothes. If somebody gets wounds from a fire weapon, there should be holes on his clothes. In this situation, there were holes only on the bodies, not on their clothes! Of course, those people who are not interested in real truth, doesn't treat the report of the Finish pathologists at all, even it was made all back in January 1999. Immediately, Melissa Flemming reports that they still do not have that report.  Also, the woman that was dressed in Albanian clothes, and who you might see in photos, was nothing else but a representative of the famous OSCA, and for who, and how she plays the game, we certainly do not know.

These situations, all by themselves, are not of  big importance, but they represent attempts in making some other goals. Of course, sticking nose in other's business cannot pass without the 'democratic America' and their satellites. They do those kinds of things under the canvas of 'keeping peace', 'reign of democracy', 'protecting the weak'. Is it exactly like that? Aren't they a little bit different? Sure, they are. 

People informed about the situation on the Balkan area ( the area of the former Yugoslavia) since 1991 until nowadays, know that America and their allies were on the side of the weaker side in war in Croatia, of course, using the mentioned sentences. But, did anybody ever tried to ask himself what would happen if they had chosen the opposite side, for example, the Serbian side (like they nowadays stand on the side of the terrorists on Kosovo)? NOTHING would happen. Croatia would have to recognize that in that part of Croatia had always lived the majority of Serbian people, and the war wouldn't last longer than a few hours of negotiations in a town somewhere in Europe. Oh okay, but where's the profit? We cannot end the story without it. America and allies knew (using their secret agents) that Yugoslavia (Serbia) wouldn't allow slaughtering and exodus of Serbian majority from Croatia. That was the reason why have they chosen the Croatian side to finance, in order to collect the credit and the rate of interest, after the war would end. In this confrontation, Germany was there with America, which had its own interests. 
In this situation, they are with the terrorists, calling them "civilians", because they are weaker. Also, like in the recent example, they try to magnify the credit and the interest rate given to Albanians (maybe Albania, too?), not because they love them or that "their obligation is to protect the innocent people from the invader", but to pay off the financing, through money, territory, dependence, domination, etc. The example for it are American weapons found on dead terrorists, and the weapons being confiscated by the forces of the police of Yugoslavia. Of course, it is not democratic or human. Casualties are nothing for that kind of people. 10,000 or 100,000 bodies...who cares, important thing is how much hundreds millions or billions of dollars  go in Uncle Sam's pocket. Is this the democracy a normal person should be proud of? If you have reach this point of the text, you would agree with me that there's not a 'D' of democracy. The question is if we can really do something about that. The threats of bombing Yugoslavia, if the its government do not accept the presence of the NATO on this area, is nothing but willing to dominate, and sticking nose in other's business. The situation is similar to following: 

Let's say that the son an the father argue about the son's room. If the son wants his room where he could sleep, invite a girlfriend, listen to music, or something similar, the father should accept that if they have a spare room. Of course, if those persons live in a flat, it is impossible the son could have another entrance. In that situation, the father couldn't know what would happen over there, or what kind of company his son invites to his apartment. He couldn't know, if the son is on drugs, or if he is planning a robbery together with his friends. That means the son can have his own room, but only within the flat, or, there is another alternative; the son could go to live at his girlfriend's apartment. Of course, the son wouldn't want this solution, he wants his own room where his mother-in-law wouldn't bother him. Now, to save himself, the son calls a neighbor (weight: 200 kg) and makes a deal with him to watch him from his father, and in exchange, the neighbor could invite his mistress in the son's room. That screenplay forces the father to be silent or to beat the son and the neighbor. 

For those ones who didn't get the text well, 
Casting: 

FATHER: Yugoslavia 
SON: Albanians on Kosovo 
NEIGHBOR: NATO 
SON'S GIRLFRIEND: Albania 
ROOM: Kosovo 

Maybe it is obvious, but, I would like to mention the one-sided  view and filtrating of reports and information concerned with Kosovo. Personally, I think that the majority of foreign reporters on Kosovo has misappropriated their occupation; to submit objective, and true information about the events they see. Someone informed about the situation may easily get sick, or even crazy and mad, when he sees what is being sent to the rest of the world like a valid and true information. Maybe I have just accused objective and truth-addicted reporters, so I'm using this sentence to apologize to them. Beside that, the majority of filtrating data and information is being done exactly in press and TV agencies, which publish the information, minor part is done by the immediate reporters. In that kind of world, there are no "sides in war", there's only an "invader" and a "civilian". The invader is the one who should be destroyed by the world, and the civilian is the one who should be protected. That is true. Every normal, and to peace addicted person would like it to be so. The people who "rule" the world are familiar with this, and they only have to stick a right label on a side in confrontation. For example, now, Yugoslavia wears the label "invader" and Albanians on Kosovo, the label "civilians". In Croatia, Serbians were "terrorists" and Croatia was "independent and sovereign country". That's why the world hates Yugoslavia. If somebody would like to support Yugoslavia, "he" could stick a label "terrorists" on Albanians on Kosovo, and "sovereign country" on Yugoslavia. Simple. Isn't it? 

Another example; A man and I play a game of chess, in which I should mate him in 2 moves. Then he says: "Let's change the sides!" (Democratic way). In case the man holds a gun in his hand, I would definitely accept the proposal. Then, I loose the game. On the end, we make a logical conclusion: "The man has beaten me, he plays chess better than me." You see, although with logic - false conclusion. 

I would like to apologize if I simplified the situations by comparing them with the situations from an ordinary life. The main idea was to show the truth about the events on Kosovo to the people who are not well informed, or not informed at all about the Kosovo situation, and to those ones who even do not know where that Yugoslavia is, and that doesn't prevent them of making wrong conclusions, mostly on the basis of the information they get from their correct, democratic, objective, and whatever newspapers and TV stations. 

Here, I would like to  mention Serbian patriot Dragoslav Rajkovic, who was strangulated in France, some time ago. At first time, immediately after the murder, the public information concerning how did he die, was that he had a heart attack. At the end, French experts are publishing that he was strangulated. By the way, Rajkovic was one of the most noticed Serbian activists out, in the world. During the negotiations in Rambouille, he organized protest meetings. He participated in press conferences.  

Who wanted to kill a man who was fighting for the truth?