I guess I should feel honored having a troll. It is sort of comforting, in a strange, masochistic way. And I need to address the points, repetitive that they are. So, here goes:
1. "1 is not correct because blowing up people, including little kids, is not the only thing a group of people can do to remove an occupying force." No, I suppose it is not the only thing. However, they don't have a lot of options and this is the one they picked. One has to deal with reality.
2. "There is something about us they don't like." I propose that one simply switches the players. Put us in the position of the Iraqi. Figure out why we might not like what's going on.
3. "Why were attacked on 9/11? We were just minding our own business at that point." Mikey, Mikey, my boy. Wake up! America is an imperial power. For better or worse, our culture and influence extends throughout the world.
4. "Why couldn't it be our freedom?" Because before "freedom" as I assume you are using the word (freedom of speech, religion, political expression, etc.) one has to have freedom from harm and freedom from hunger, freedom from thirst and freedom from the elements. There are few political philosophers in a foxhole; and there are damn few in Afghanistan and Iraq.
5. "But it's not G.W.'s fault these radical Muslims are so evil that they have no respect for human life. They did these same things before G.W., they will do these same things after G.W." Really? I've been around a long time and I don't remember terrorism being used like it is now. Suicide bombing from Wikipedia:
Lebanon, during its civil war, saw the first modern suicide bombing: the Islamic Dawa Party's car bombing of the Iraqi embassy in Beirut, in December 1981.Suicide bombing has increased dramatically in Iraq since the invasion. It is their major weapon. Again:
Suicide bombing may thus "work" as a military tactic (in that it costs fewer lives than any conventional military tactic or targeting soldiers rather than civilians) and may or may not achieve the political objectives sought by the combatant. However, it is likely to remain a method of operation employed by Palestinians, at least as long as the Palestinians are outclassed militarily by Israel (emphasis added).This is the point. It is the only alternative because of the overwhelming firepower of the American military. Observe carefully that I am not making a moral judgement here. The time for moral judgements is long past. This is practical.
6. "If we are unwilling to fight and destroy the kind of evil that blows up innocent children..." Saddam Hussein was a meglomaniacal butcher as were his sons. He killed many innocents. But we are not up against SH or even an organized opposition. We are up against a fanatical group (10,000? 20,000? who knows) that is well armed with explosives (probably due to our neglect in securing the massive arms dumps after the invasion) that is committed to driving us from their land. It has nothing to do with evil at all.
Jorge Luis Borges once wrote a story about a king and his obsession with models of his kingdom. At first he just had a small model on his table. Then he expanded it to the size of his room. He was so enchanted that he ordered a map that was as big as his palace. Finally, of course, he built one as big as his kingdom.
The moral here is that we would probably have to send 25 million men to guard every single Iraqi every second of the day to vanquish this type of insurgency. You and GW may think that you are bringing "freedom and democracy" to Iraq, but I don't think there are many there that believe that or, more importantly, care.
We need to change what we are doing. It is as simple as that.