Here’s why I think there’s a difference between the example I shared and 9/11 (despite my acknowledgment that US foreign policy is indeed the reason why it happened). In the case I mention — enslaved persons killing their enslavers AND those enslavers’ families — there is a direct line between the agent of action (the rebelling enslaved person) and their victims, who either hold them in bondage or are those persons who WILL hold them in bondage if the “master” is killed but they are left alive. There is direct line culpability and necessity involved in the act. For 9/11, the hijackers are acting on behalf of others, ostensibly, who have been oppressed by the U.S. Except 1) they were Saudi, and the U.S. has not oppressed Saudi Arabia FFS — quite the opposite, we have empowered the Kingdom for a long time; 2) They were certainly not among the class of Saudi nationals who could theoretically claim to have been oppressed by, say, the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, and 3) the persons killed on 9/11, especially in the WTC were absolutely not comparable to those slaveowners and their families I referenced in the scenario. They would be equivalent, say, to the white folks during the period of enslavement who did not actually own other people but who silently acquiesced to the slave system. And I do not believe it would have been moral for enslaved persons to kill them.