A little background on your point of view would have been nice.

That way, one is left to ask themselves: Why, of all, is a feminist tapping into the old trap giving, in a generalizing way, all women the victim's role?

In the case of feminist history, basically to portray them as the better half of humanity. They're not, per se.

Most societies in the recent centuries restricted them to a rather passive role, at least officially, when it came to war. When you look at the photos of history books where massacres are being executed, you almost always see men with rifles, and women, men and children in front of them. I suppose those images shape a lot of mental images of how war works.
But it's not that women are less capable of committing atrocities, once they have been integrated into the institutions supporting them.

A woman committing them is often taboo though, as if it were against nature - another aspect of "women don't do war", I suppose. Lindy England? The women who worked, and tortured, in Nazi era concentration camps?

Women have always participated in war, though often not exactly in the spotlight, as the thing propaganda wanted the people to see was mainly male heroism (which has, most often, partly been portrayed as protecting women from the enemy).
They followed their men during the Roman era, and during the crusades, and all the following wars, they took part as medical and technical staff during the world wars - all of which included joining the fight once you were in the melee.
A lot of people are in an ideologic dilemma because since recently, women are allowed as soldiers, not only medical staff, into the German army as well. If you're from a political camp that is for pacifism as well as sexual equality, its probably hard to decide wether that's a good thing or a bad thing.

Of course, in most wars, there were always civilists of both genders being killed, and fighting the fight only in the trenches was more of an exception. (Every bigger city at least in Europe, Asia, and surely a lot of cities in africa can tell that story.) Plus, it always was a tactic of war to rape as many of "the enemy's women" as possible.
Though Rinso is right in saying the powerful decide starting the war, its often human nature that takes over the rest - you don't have to [i:9669f3b964]order [/i:9669f3b964]your army to rape every girl (and boy) they can get hold of, in some cases you just don't forbid it. (Nanking?)