I'd agree that's what got the government's attention, but surely if it's against military bases, wouldn't that mean it's not terrorism?

I was under the impression that, by definition, terrorism had to be against civilian/non-military things, with the aim of generating fear, or terror amongst the population.

I remember things like bombs in shopping centres, cars, schools, city centres, buses, venues etc as terrorism, for example.

These people did what? Broke into a military base and sprayed some paint on an aircraft?

That's not terrorism. That's basically just "a bit naughty". Vandalism at worst.

Who decided that was terrorism? Budgie the Little Helicopter? Jimbo of the Jet Set?

Your point?

Don't forget attacking people with sledgehammers and ram-raiding a factory with people working in it.

E: the usual Lemmy tankies think attacking people with sledgehammers is fine I guess

Spray painting a few planes is an EXTREMELY measured response to your government participating in a genocide IMO.

The government response is eerily similar to how the IDF reacts to anything resembling resistance in Palestine when it comes to proportionality.

They didn't "have" to do anything; both the ban and the UK's continued participation in the genocide are active unforced choices the government made. In the first place a law making "I support X" a crime has no place in a free country, no matter what X is. Yes, even the really bad thing you just thought of right now. Using such a law to crack down on anti-genocide dissent is nothing short of tyranny.

That was, in hindsight, not a wise thing to do I think. Definitely gave the UK government an excuse to do something they wanted to do anyway.