Belz...
Fiend God
My view of collateral damage is that it's justified only when two conditions* are met:
First, the destruction of the target has a clear military value.
Second, that the amount of collateral damage is proportional to the expected military value of destroying the target.
Obviously this is a social situation, not a military one, so feel free to substitute "social value" for military value. Without resorting to bigotry, can you present a theory of social value arising from the thousands of deaths that you believe will solve whatever the problem is?
Yes, more votes for the party that's more likely to address the issue that's threatening our species right now: global warming.