No, you don't seem to get it.

What constitutes the "genuine need" you speak of? Seems like there is genuine need to reduce carbon emissions, should people be sabotaging our power infrastructure? What if it turned out that these substation attacks were committed by people using that exact justification, because there's a genuine need to use extreme tactics to reduce energy consumption? Are you saying you would condone that? If you don't condone that, are you saying there isn't a genuine need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

There's a genuine need to reduce the growing far-right hate groups, too. What sort of extremist actions are justified in that case? Who gets to draw that line? You? Me?

Two wrongs don't make a right. Whether you want to admit it or not, that's the essence of your justification for whatever romantic notion you seem to have about committing "extremist acts of resistance".

Not only that, they aren't nearly as effective as non-violent respectability politics and passive civil disobedience.