So did NATO in 1999 bombing of yugoslavia.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/may/08/balkans <- cluster bombing a (farmers) market
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/apr/24/balkans3 <- tv station, "Serb TV station was legitimate target, says Blair"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grdelica_train_bombing <- civilian train and bridge (and having to speed up the video, to make it seem non-intentional)
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48134881 <- even a chinese embassy
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9904/07/nato.attack.01/i... <- "school, a monastery and other civilian facilities"
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9904/14/refugees.02/inde... <- albanian refugees
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9905/01/kosovo.military.... <- bus
etc.
Their routine tactics of dealing with rebels is to bomb civians dear to those rebels. When they don't hope to make territorial gains, they wish to inflict some damage and civian targets are way easier to hit.
This week, they're using freshly supplied M777 to bomb areas of Donetsk they could not reach previously. Such as by hitting four schools in a single day.
How is this principially different from Assad?