Robert, I'm glad you've engaged on this thread as you and I both had quite a bit of speculation on how the panel reached their discussion. However I am a little disappointed that now that report is available you are not actually commenting on the report, but rather just complaining about how some LFC supporters are reacting to the judgement.
But having said that, and hopefully we can actually discuss the report if you care to read it (I know how much you encouraged others to read other FA reports) I will address the points you've mad here.
First up on the needing help, in actuality this is not something new. As I understand it Suarez has been working with a renowned sports psychologist for a while, who is in fact the same person who worked with Craig Bellamy and we all know what kind of temper he used to have. Also it seems he was getting results. I'm not sure the actual numbers (sure someone can look them up) but there has been a marked decrease in the number of yellow cards Suarez has received since December (when he started the program) compared to the first part of the season. The Chelsea match was obviously a set back, however it seems that many at the club had felt he'd been making progress up until that point. This was all detailed on Sky's Sunday Supplement show. I can't remember the name of the journalist who did the reporting, but I'm sure you can find more details your side of the pond.
Additionally on this point however what's wrong with suspending part of the sanction? This seems to be something applied to other footballers and other systems designed not just to punish but also change future behavior. If the panels goal was to ensure this type of offence does not happen again, what is wrong with incentive's for a player to promote good behavior and at the same time hanging an additional punishment over him if he does not change his behavior? It seems to work well in the criminal justice systems around the world, so why not football. Or because it is often used in football, why not for Suarez?
On your second point, I'm sorry but this sounds like a desire to punish the man rather than address the actual crime. I fully understand you and many others don't really like Suarez, so want to punish him, but as you have had a keen interest in the FA process in the past don't you find it troubling that your justifying a hefty sanction by including transgressions specifically not considered (or at least that is what they stated) by the panel. Does this not suggest a bias, or a desire to punish the man rather than punish the crime?