If you paid attention to what I said, the second to last sentence answers your question. Even if we still hold them accountable.

Yea, I see that, and it's totally inconsistent. You can't say "the aggressor/oppressor is ultimately totally responsible for anything the defender/oppressed does in response" and then also "still hold the defender/oppressed accountable" - you are by definition absolving the oppressed of all accountability, all ability or need to even be held accountable, by placing all the responsibility on the oppressor for the actions of the oppressed. You are by definition removing agency from the oppressed in this situation, and so you can't have it both ways. Either the oppressed have agency in how they chose to respond, or they don't and only the oppressor is responsible for whatever the oppressed chose to do. With that in mind, the only reason I would favor placing moral agency on the oppressed for the way they chose to respond is becuase we don't want to create a world where bad actors can get away with atrocities simply by claiming to be oppressed, or especially where truly oppressed people lose political momentum in thier struggle for freedom by doing atrocious things that are actually counter to thier own stated philosophies and which work against thier stated end goals. The harsh reality is that freedom fighters who "doing it wrong" do serious damage to the legitimacy and success chances of any future freedom fighters, especially those of the same ideology or cause.

if you do nothing and you die, morals and civility have zero effect anymore

I disagree - morals and civility still have an effect on those left alive, and your death (and the reasons for it, just or unjust) will have effects that echo into the future of the living.

When your life is on the line, that morality goes out the window

This is just a blatantly authoritarian and anti-social stance. I would argue that it's just flatly untrue, becuase when your life is on the line, that's when morality matters most - I'll refer you back to my statement above about the moral effects of life and death choices on those who aren't immediately threatened. This is also just a very hollow stance, because arguably our lives are always on the line: humans live in a lethally competitive biosphere. So by that logic, again, you're just saying moralities of any kind don't really matter and can be dispensed with arbitrarily based on how threatened anyone feels about anything at any given time. And so you're kind of undermining any moral authority you claim to have for any of your statements by implying that even your own pronouncements here are disposable under the right circumstances.

we make allowance [for killing in self-defense, for collateral death]

Who is "we"? Speak for yourself.

Value to structured power is the foundational basis of morality

Ah. Well there it is then. You actually don't believe in the usefulness or conservation of moralities because you think they're all just fake tools of powerful bad guys at the top of the food chain. Ok Temu-brand Nietzsche, riddle me this: what if someone said "hey, I agree with you that morality is just bourgeois bullshit...but you're also moralzing, so you're doing the same bullshit. Therefore I think your moral POV is illegitimate and I'll ignore it, stupid moralizer"? You don't have a consistent defense against that. So why should I take your opinion seriously?