Rather more than that, estimates vary between 240K and 900K. Nukes being a bit of a sideshow, a whole string of cities were destroyed mostly with simple and rather efficient incendiary bombs. First use of Napalm I believe.I think he is forgetting about the 200,000 or so Jap. civilians the US obliterated in 1945.
After WWII firebombing was viewed as a little unsporting and eventually the use to destroy civilian populations became unfashionable. I can still recall Napalmed Vietnamese scampering on the tele. These days if you are playing the White man you are only meant to do it "accidentally" with a spot of white phosphorus. These "international norms" didn't stop Vlad toasting lots of Chechens like they were VC during Grozny II.
The linkage of not very effective tactical chemical warfare to very effective strategic nuclear weapons via the phrase WMD was a very dubious propaganda ploy used to facilitate the Iraqi invasion. I do wonder that mugs out there are still falling for a variety of the same thing.
It's regime conventional tube artillery (used in a rather sloppy and sporadic way) and troops/militiamen who are killing most of the non-combatants not CW. And about a third of the casualties are regime fighters according to the UN. The distinction between being roasted, poisoned or as is far more common in Syria terrorized by shell fire finally to be mangled by shrapnel seems rather academic. The prospect of living under threat from city killing nuclear weapons is a whole different ball game.