>but people agree that it was justifiable for the cause. what exactly makes it that different from doing it on behalf of animals and nature?
sabotage is always a huge ass block in the way of a credible peace movement. the wrong questions are always asked when it happens too: should people have done this? is it justifiable?
sabotage is always going to be an appeal to sympathy because the cause must somehow outweigh the damage done, but interestingly enough, everyone pretty much agrees that no one should be going around blowing up the shit of others or finding themselves ruining property for the sake of a message unless there is no other means of broadcasting your concern to the public.
so sabotage appeals to your sympathy as a human being, but it also ebbs against your natural instinct for protection. that's why it's very vindictive and a shitty mode of conduct if you are seriously adamant about your cause. sure the cause can be worthwhile and outweigh the damage done, but if throwing shit at someone is what i have to do in order to gain my freedom then that doesn't make the means for communicating my message any cleaner.