Counterargument: It is not a Genocide since no one is Targeting the Mass Killing

If a nation were to kill millions of innocent civilians in an invasion, using fires and other means of mass extermination, the world would see this as genocide, and claims such as “we just wanted their land, we don’t want them dead” would not suffice.

I think actively seeking to kill animals is exactly what humans do; Concrete, for example, is the technology that's supposed to prevent any life from arising above it, it deliberately kills the food sources animals depend on. Is the killing the target or a biproduct? it is a semantic debate non less than a one of essence. Is the death itself sought, or the outcome of death, such as absence of political uprising against Stalin (as with his politicide), or the Congolese harvesting more rubber, as with colonial genocides in Africa. It is similar is animalcide, that is beside the point.