Prima facie, i'd agree on all those sentiments. But each one of those as I read, i find arguments that make those statements more complicated to agree to.

This here, is where most people say I get annoying. Please feel free to ignore my rambling thoughts 😆 Its really probably beyond yhe casual discussion fron a few day ago.

No innocents should be harmed.

It depends on the definition of innocents. There are many in Israel (by no means all) now who claim there are no innocence in Gaza and that every child is 'a' or 'potential' terrorist. This is an extreme position against human and moral rights of not holding the child accountable for the parents' alleged crimes. It also assumes that a population has no right to defend itself. It is important to note that States label non-state actors terrorists for all kinds of things, without always just reasoning. For example, The IRA could have been described as a resisitance just as easily as terrorists. In the last few weeks the Teump administration has put someone on terrorism charges with 30 years imprisonment for distributing 'leftist' pamphlets.

People have a right to existence,

I think is indistuptable. I wouldn't want to dispute that even for the most heinous people alive today.

violence is not the answer to solving problems

This functionally isn't true, but is a good ideal for the world to work towards. In a world with low trust and high rates of use of cohersion and worse violence sometimes becomes an option. For instance how could Ukraine have stopped Russia invading without giving up its sovereignty, or down to the micro a woman being raped may be able to scratch her rapist on the chest during the act thereby leaving a mark, but also collecting the rapist's skin cells under her finger nails for later. Both these examples are, i think, legitimate forms of violence to oppose a wrong being done to them by others.

no one is above the law

I love this phrase because of it's subtlety. It says there is a law that is above everyone, but leaves room in the statement for an unjust or useless law to be ignored until such time as its amended.

Religious extremism leads to evil deeds

This is likely more a historical function of societies networks of formal ties being ordered by a religion. So I think any group/network of people with close enough bonds can be influenced into doing terrible things as easily as wonderful things, its not something limited to religious belief as such, the correlation is there probably becuase thats how humans have ordered themselves so often. For example the Bolsheviks were ruthless with their quarries, it wasn't a form of religious extremism, but it was the same process of radicalisation.

Anyway, sorry. That screed was as much for me and ordering of my thoughts, as it was a response to your comment. Have a good day Seagoon :)