Civil Civillian, if you mean,
Originally Posted by Civil Civillian
Both are helpless at defending themselves against their assailant.
then hardly a reply, simply restating your previous point after a few here have explained the difference.
To illustrate, take the same issue into a different context. US forces conducted air operations in SE Asia in the 60s. On many occasion they attacked Vietnam Kong personnel who had no means of directly firing back. When US Airmen were shot down they were subjected to grossly inhumane treatment and deadly reprisals. That is what international law is there to prevent.
I am not condoning or justifying Russia's operations in Syria; I oppose their actions. But the rebels are their fighting against Russia's allies and are doing so by choice against Syrian and Russian forces whose capabilities they well know, putting themselves at risk from those capabilities. Should they find themselves in a hopeless military situation, they have the option to surrender and abandon their fight; in that situation they should expect fair treatment. The same is true for their opposition who should also expect fair treatment.
The difference is those that are choosing to fight and those that are, for some reason, no longer doing so.
The difference is one is an operationally justified act of war, the other is murderous retribution.
The difference is one is legal and legitimate, the other is not.