I am reluctant to reply since the inflaming of emotions is a real concern. See this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_bombing
And see this book:
Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 by Frederick Taylor.
So-called "non-combatants" have been deliberatey targeted since antiquity. As if one could fight a war where only those legally allowed to kill each other would face off and the innocent "refugees" would just stay out of the way. Rape, murder, mutilation, and torture of civilians were not "invented" recently. These tactics are designed to weaken the will of the people so they might put down their arms or at least fear the enemy to the point of having second thoughts about putting up a determined resistance.
My father fought the Germans and later, in the very few times he spoke of it, likened it to a job where you killed the enemy before he killed you. It was his duty to defend his country and he carried it out. He also did not appear to have been emotionally scarred by the experience and just moved on with his life.
It is schizophrenic that in war, a combatant might kill his legal enemy by fire, explosive, gun, knife or brute force, but there is still a desire to retain the image of being better than one's enemies by not targeting their civilian population. However, once the other side does so, all bets are off and the justification, if one were needed, to respond in kind is allowed.
The phrase "rules of war" is a little misleading vis a vis what actually goes on in the field of battle and among those refugees.
Ed