Your response was coined by a Catholic Bishop, IIRC during a crusade against European heretics.
In fact, targeting civilians itself is not genocide but a time honored means of sapping the other guy's will and ability to fight.
It was suppressed in western warfare for some time while set piece battles determined results.
It was stunningly brought home by Sherman, I don't remember any tales from WWI (more set piece/stalemate battles) and returned, perhaps by accident, in WWII.
However, genocide has so much greater meaning that it is almost sinful to allege that they are the same.
Genocide relates to an entire people (European Jewry, Rwandan Tutsi...). 'Targeting civilians' relates to local populations, generally believed to have strategic value to the enemy (Tokyo, Berlin, London..).
.Even 'ethnic cleansing' falls short unless you want to consider it to be a regional genocide (Serbs, Gypsies, Hmong...).
That said, aside from collateral damage such as the apartment block Hezbollah selected for its rocket launchers, civilians should not be targeted on the core western belief that they are not participants themselves. (which explains the Geneva rules we are ignoring today - if you ain't in a uniform and take up arms against me, you're fair game and NO protections apply.)
There's also the simple reality that, if it does not terrify them into abject surrender (dhimmitude), it can really piss-off the civilians and seriously complicate things if you manage to best their army.
1. (which explains the Geneva rules we are ignoring today - if you ain't in a uniform and take up arms against me, you're fair game and NO protections apply.)
2. There's also the simple reality that, if it does not terrify them into abject surrender (dhimmitude), it can really piss-off the civilians and seriously complicate things if you manage to best their army. ----- (See rule #1)