No, you miss the point. Murder is not properly used for defining the sort of deaths in war that we are talking about. Your use of murder is false and your examples are a false dichotomy. Apples and oranges as they say.
When soldiers deliberately kill civilians they are charged with...wait for it...wait for it...wait for it...murder!
To put it another way: The distinction is PRECISELY between killing that is murder and killing that is not murder.
When civilians are targeted and killed deliberately, they have been murdered, whether the killing was done by a soldier or pilot contrary to orders, or in obedience to orders. If done in obedience to orders, the guilty include those who initiated the orders, no matter how far up the chain of command.
In WWII, American officers were in constant battle with British officers about terror bombing. The distinction was precisely between bombing military assets and bombing civilians for purposes of terror. The objections raised by the Americans were based PRECISELY on the assertion that targeting civilians was murder.
The notion that in war you can just slaughter people is a barbaric macho attitude that has no place in the American military, and never has.
The deliberate killing of civilians in WWII, including the dropping of the atomic bombs, was a descent into barbarism. It is perfectly understandable, given the demented, psychotic barbarity of the Japanese, but it was still murder.