Like usual, ATG, you're creating too many problems for me to be able to organise and respond to at once effectively, so I might pick which brush fires to douse, somewhat selectively.
First I'll try and broadly outline what you've asked for:
Brutality towards Iraq as a method of achieving stability.
You use the word murder in reference to that brutality, implying killing without justification.
Taking of oil, property of another nation, by decree (basically theft), an empty and pointless declaration of victory ( haven't we had one of those already) and what amounts to regime change of anywhere that doesn't agree with your own sense of foreign policy (sure you're not Donald Rumsfeld in disguise?). After that it gets kind of angry and vengeful, like you want to be God from the old testament.
I don't have a problem with you, it's with your reasoning: who has hacked your account and had you portraying Osama as speaking for all Muslims, as if Dale Evans Barlow speaks for all Christians, such is the absurdity of the claim you make.
So basically, brutality as a method of pacification or achieving stability might achieve a short termreduction of violence, but will in the long term result in a more catastrophic failure. It leads to the worship of martyrs (see Palestine), the further encouragement of resistance (see Afghanistan) and the rise of historically significant leaders in the country (see USA War of Independence, Civil War).
The state condoning murder is an idea that doesn't take much reasoning to reveal the holes in. In short, it would undermine it's operations in the country it is occupying, in terms of it's pretense at establishing rule of law, and at home, by being such a huge contradiction to laws it enforces in it's home jurisdiction.
The taking of the property of another nation, Iraq's oil being a perfect example, amounts to nothing more than theft. Yes, you could say it was to pay for the cost in lives, equipment and expense the United States and its allies have contributed. Yet that still wouldn't be justification, the previous Iraqi government / regime or the people did not ask to be invaded, and the idea of asking for recompense for something inflicted on another nation, against their will, is illogical.
The idea of attacking Mecca, the place of Hajj for the Islamic people is ridiculous, you really can't equate a place of unrivalled religious significance to millions of people with two office towers, not even 50 years old, that may have been symbolic of the economic power of the USA, but certainly weren't part of the spiritual lives in a deeper sense that the Ka'aba has meant for over a millenia.
Though you may characterise the people of the middle east as backwards and animalistic, it is all a matter of perspective. To them, you, as a modern American, are every bit as strange and indecipherable, with your consumerism. They too have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that Thomas Jefferson wrote so eloquently of, you have no right to take that away from them. If they choose to live their lives that way, so be it.
Finally, I know I've directed this at ATG, because of his particular comments in this thread, but many people in this section say similar kinds of things, and so, consider this a warning to all of you. American ethnocentrism is not an acceptable way of governing the planet.
