Yes, technically Brenton Tarrant is not a terrorist, but a uniformed Partisan Resistance Fighter.
As we know, Wikipedia is the mouthpiece of the Regime. Let's see what it has to say about being a Partisan?
>"A partisan is an armed fighter, who is not part of the regular troops of a country or state. The term comes from Italian, where it meant member of a political party. There is no separate legal status for partisans in international law. The law of war uses four criteria to legally define someone as a prisoner of war, if the person is captured:
simple.wikipedia.org
Okay, so Brenton Tarrant stated quite clearly that he is resisting a foreign occupation of his nation by invaders. And a mosque is a base of operations for Muslims to take over infidel nations. They believe this.
Ah, but Tarrant is not a member of an organization.
True, but he does assume liability for his actions. He is essentially a one man army. And he is his own commander.
If anyone wants to argue that one man does not an organization make, one could simply respond by stating that Brenton Tarrant identifies as an organization. And if men can identify as women, dragons, and attack helicopters, it's more than reasonable to argue that he is an organization of one. And as stated before, he assumes liability for his actions.
Did he wear militaria insignia clearly visible?
Yes. Pic related. That is the military insignia of Europe waging war against invasion and occupation.
Did he carry his weapons openly? Absolutely. In fact, he made no effort whatsoever to hide his weapons.
Did he adhere to the "customs and laws of war" though?
Surely in killing those unarmed civilians, he demonstrates that he was not a Partisan Fighter but a terrorist, after all, we know that ONLY terrorists would kill unarmed civilians, right?
Well, for one thing, we could point out the fact that the US military regularly slaughters thousands of Muslim civilians. And the Zionist occupation force in Palestine regularly slaughters civilians. But if there is one thing I know from watching CNN, it's that Gnat-sees are bad and anyone who resisted the ebil gnat-sees was a Partisan freedom fighter resistance hashtag.
So during that righteous Partisan war of resistance, did the Poles, Jews, and Serbs conduct attacks against unarmed civilians that served enemy interests?
Yes. Many times in fact.
In April 1943, a horrendous ethnic displacement of Polish civilians was conducted by Ukrainian Paramilitary groups. In retaliation,
en.wikipedia.org
Were the Polish anti-Nazi Resistance fighters terrorists now because they killed unarmed civilians?
What about the assassination of unarmed pro-German civilian collaborators?
Or the slaying of unarmed German Settlers "invading" Poland at the time?
Terrorism or Partisan action? Make up your mind, antifa. Make up your mind.
How about this
>"The Bielski fighters (a jewish "Partisan" organization during the war) often joined with Soviet partisans in operations against German guards and facilities, killing many Germans and Belorussian collaborators."
That means "civilians suspected of supporting the National Socialist War Effort"
archive.fo
Well? Make up your mind, jews. Is it okay to kill civilians during a war or isn't it?