Ooooh. I like it, you came out swinging. Isn't it true that in a democratic system that every voter bears some culpability for the decisons made by the Government? US foreign policy may be enacted by the military, but it's shaped by the politicians and those positions are decided directly by the people. Yes, it may be possible to argue those who aren't allowed to vote (ie children, prisoners, severely disabled) are granted some degree of innocence, but everyone else has culpability either by supporting an action or failing to stop it using whatever democratic means they have. Your congress is called the 'House of Representatives' for a reason - I'd argue there's a definite relationship between citizen and state in a democracy.

The individual nationalities of the 9/11 terrorists is neither here nor there, theirs is a religious war about the oppression of Muslim people wherever they may be. The organisation has many different factions and command centres some of which happen to be Saudi. You wouldn't argue that only soldiers from NY would be allowed to retalliate would you? There's an ideology that binds the other 49 states into joint action, even though they have different legal systems, different populations, and different local governments.

And your final point is an interesting one. You believe it would've been moral to kill the children of slave owners, but not adult white folks who didn't intervene? You believe a newborn baby has more culpability at the point of birth because of inherited sins of comission, but the sin of omission of adults is morally acceptable?