RT: NATO intentionally targeted civilian infrastructure like power plants and refineries but they also hit schools and churches. Were they struck deliberately and if so, why?

William Murray: This is a very good question. As you recall, the Chinese Embassy was hit. Also, bridges were destroyed that caused traffic on the Danube River to stop in Europe for several years. I think some of it was to punish Serbia, to punish the Christian Serbs for what they viewed as some kind of genocide, which in fact it was not.

RT: How deep, do you think, is the religious divide in the region and do you believe NATO was effective in stopping the violence?

William Murray: Absolutely not! In fact it has intensified. First of all, they have basically separated the key part of Serbia and declared it an independent nation. The amount of money pouring in from Muslim Arab nations into fundamentalist mosques has actually caused a rising tide of Muslim fundamentalism and hatred to Christians.

RT: What do you think would have happened if NATO had not got involved in the country?

William Murray: I think that the situation with the illegal immigration of Albanians into Serbia that caused the situation in the first place could have been dealt with by Serbia. I think agreements could have eventually been reached that would not have caused the destruction and eventual ethnic cleansing of the Christian Serbian population from Kosovo.

RT: So overall, do you think NATO's actions can be justified?

William Murray: I don’t think they can be justified anymore than it would be justified for the United Nations to come in and declare that Southern California should become an independent nation because it has a majority of illegal immigrants from Mexico, which would have been the absolute equivalent with what NATO did with Serbia and Kosovo.