If we start from the premise that the state is defined as an institution monopolizing violence, then it stands to reason that one or the other is true.

If the ends justify the means and the morality of the methods used are irrelevant, then perhaps we can say that the state generally or wars specifically are rational.

These are questions of absolutism, which is fine in theory, but in practice we need to make room for pragmatism.

But back to the specific context of the article, the use of violence against an Amazon datacenter seems unreasonable. It fails a basic sanity check. The individual undoubtedly could have chosen other non-violent methods to express himself.