That's not what this is about. Everyone agrees that damage to military assets is a criminal action, no matter how you justify it. The problem I and others have is that the actions don't meet any sort of sensible criteria for what is "terrorism". Most people would say terrorism must involve mass harm to people, not necessarily property. Lots of other organisations over the years should have been proscribed if "terrorism" means property damage. Anyone involved in the race riots, Just Stop Oil, hell, even Banksy, would all qualify if that was the case. It opens the door for the UK government to proscribe any organisation it doesn't like, which is especially concerning at a time when the next government is likely to be even more authoritarian and use this event as precedent to do the same but more.

Of course I support peaceful protest, but not when it inconveniences the public somewhat, or if they trespass anywhere, or if they damage government property. And you can't march in the streets, either

The cognitive dissonance is astounding. How's that boot taste?

Depends on your goals and what you are willing to risk to achieve them. Some people throw paint on priceless art, some people light themselves on fire, some people yell at people on the internet. Any protest is a cost-risk evaluation.

Millions of pounds? Oh those poor pounds, they must be terrified! Wait, what? Money doesn't have feelings and nor do fighter jets? Therefore no terror was caused, and the proscribing of this group as terrorists is therefore absurd? No, no. tHeSe DeFeNsE cOrPoRaTiOnS hAvE a RiGhT tO dEfEnD hErSeLf.