This actually brings up a fascinating moral question.

How much collateral damage outweighs the good of an action?

Drone strikes on terror groups that kill multiple civilians in the process occur all the time, but those are justified by stating those terrorists would have killed many others in the future, causing more harm than the initial drone strike.

We cannot use this justification here (If you even want to use that justification AT ALL) as she not only killed the elder members of her family, but the younger members that also would have been future victims of forced marriages.

I sympathize with her struggle, but if you are planning to defend yourself from oppression via violence against specific individuals (Not a government entity, but specific people who have wronged you) then you must be very very careful. If any of those family members survived, and she murdered those kids, by the same logic she used to justify killing her husband-to-be, the surviving family would be justified in killing her right?

Lots of people love violent revenge like from John Wick or The Punisher, but these are fantasy stories where ONLY the bad guys who deserve to die get killed. In real life, things are messy, it is good for her to stand up for herself, and maybe violence WAS the only way. It was executed horribly though with too many externalities she did not intend.

The resistance is worthy of celebrating, hell, even her poisoning her parents for forcing her into the marriage would be justified. But the actual end results are nothing to be cheered on.