We likely agree that individual military strikes ought to aim for collateral damage proportional to their war value. For example a strike with potential to kill enemy leadership (rapidly accelerating the end of the overall war) can justify high collateral damage, much higher than would be justified by a strike against frontline troops.
With this in mind, I don't follow your example at all. Are those bankers of wartime value? And if they are, is the collateral damage proportional to that value? It's possible there's a lot I don't know about those banker's links to military!
