All religions are opposed to killing innocent civilians and surely
opposed to having a policy to kill innocent civilians.

This is why terrorism is the opposite of religion.

But terrorists such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Aqsa, Al-Qaida,
Riyad-us Saliheen Brigade of Martyrs, Islamic Jihad, Lashkar-e-Taiba
and Jaish-e-Mohammed who purposefully aim to kill as many innocent
civilians as possible are outside of religion - anti-religion.
Their fervor and lust to kill is at best a perversion of religion
condemnable in any language.

Christianity claims that we are all sinners, hence there are no "innocent victims."

jrbogie, I maintian that the UN has no right to carry out an act of aggression against a sovereign nation as authorized by res1973. See Article 33 UN Charter: "The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice."

maintain what you will. you're still dead wrong but maintain your position by all means if it makes you comfortable.

Intention, being a state of the mind is difficult to prove, but our thoughts give rise to our actions. So there is usually a presumption in law that the result of our actions are intentional unless we can prove that we have an acceptable defence eg accident, mistake, insanity, selfdefence etc- collateral damage is not a known defence.Israel created the defence of 'pre-emptive strike' in int. law but it should not excuse killing innocents

What about the 1% that are saints?

If I am wrong kindly prove it. The UN can only impose sanctions and blockades when necessary. See Arts 41&42. Also Art 2(4) says: "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
Res1973 is inconsistent with the peaceful purposes of the UN, Sir. It is a terrorist act.

ooooooh, i like these easy ones. the un authorized military force against the lybian government with res 1973. you claimed that the un charter forbade such. and the un itself decides what is consistent and what is inconsistent as regards it's charter, what is and is not peaceful purpose, etc. you don't get to make those judgements. that is precisely why such authorities as the un, or own government, etc., exist in the first place. becaus you and i and others do not necessarily agree on what is and what is not a peaceful purpose. if everybody in the world were in agreement on every issue we'd not need laws, charters, world organizations such as the un or even governments would we? we'd all live contented lives in our boring, like minded way.

You are wrong.

From Wiki:

United Nations and war

In an effort to force nations to resolve issues without warfare, framers of the United Nations Charter attempted to commit member nations to using warfare only under limited circumstances, particularly for defensive purposes.

The UN became a war combatant itself after North Korea invaded South Korea on June 25, 1950 (see Korean War). The UN Security Council condemned the North Korean action by a 9-0 resolution (with the Soviet Union absent) and called upon its member nations to come to the aid of South Korea. The United States and 15 other nations formed a "UN force" to pursue this action. In a press conference on June 29, 1950, U.S. President Harry S. Truman characterized these hostilities as not being a "war", but a "police action".[9]

The United Nations has issued Security Council Resolutions that declared some wars to be legal actions under international law, most notably Resolution 678, authorizing war with Iraq in 1991. The UN Resolutions authorise the use of "force" or "all means necessary".[10]