I'd say anyone who chooses to kill a civilian, whether based on an order or not, is a war criminal. I really don't care if they thought they were there for a noble cause or not.
What if they choose to kill a person who was a civilian until they were drafted into the enemy army the day before?
What if the civilian they kill has a substantial effect on the enemy's military capabilities, for example by being someone famous who loudly endorses the honour of signing up to fight for one's country, thereby motivating thousands of young men to do just that?
What if killing a soldier’s children might make him lose his resolve or act erratically? What if destroying an entire city full of millions of civilians might make the enemy lose hope and surrender? What if poisoning the land and water for decades could prevent the enemy from reconstituting itself? What if killing all the women could prevent the production of future soldiers?
Once you open the door, where do you draw the line?
I interpret your examples as further evidence (in addition to the examples I gave) that there is no sensible justification for distinguishing military from civilian casualties. Was that your intention?
On the contrary, I was fully intending to show that you need a hard line between civilian and military when considering military action, or mass atrocities and even genocide are almost certain. It’s a little concerning that you didn’t understand that, or willfully misunderstood that. Make sure you don’t lose your humanity.
I think someone who considers a civilian's life to be starkly more valuable than the life of a person who was a civilian yesterday but, through no choice of their own, is a soldier today, should be mindful of their own humanity.
It is precisely the concept of such a "hard line" -- which by design enables such inhumanity to be passed off as inconsequential -- that must be brought out into the light and examined.
