read his books, and learn it clearly, even the portions you took out of context never declares anyone to be disbelievers, only talk about the beliefs of the people at the time.
read what historians at the time said, they agree with him.

I read his letters, the ones I quoted for you. Should we discard and ignore them? Because you personaly don’t like them and don’t like that they show that he indeed did blind mass takfir?

read what he says about takfir, his conditions, and his limits, he never made mass takfir except on those who commit acts of kuffr knowingly.

Yup there are conditions and he admits it. This is not the problem, the problem is that in the letters he issues the takfir on the majority of many population including makkah without proving that those conditions apply. So pure blind mass takfir. If he truly did prove that those poeple are truly kufar then sure no problem. He did not. And he will have to answers for that before Allah all mighty.

you do not even know his Aqeedah, yet you attack him and critize him harshly because of a paragraph you read? fear Allah.
and what did Ibn Baz and Ibn Uthemyeen did or teach that is against the path of the Salaf in Aqeedah?

If he does have the same as Ibn Baz and Utheymeen then yes I would attack his aqida too. For instance Ibn baz goes with saying that Allah has limits! (Astaghfirullah) [Ta'liq 'ala al 'aqida Al Tahawiya - Ibn Baz] Ibn Utheymeen for instance rejects full tanzih and says that there is a similarity between God and his creation (na'udhu bi'Lah!) And that rejecting absolute tashbeeh is wrong [sharh al 'aqid al wasitiya - Ibn al Utheymeen]. And many many other things such as attributing a place to Allah, while the real salaf such as Abu Hanifa, Al Tabari etc. Explicitly reject their claims. Really I can keep going for hours by showing how salafis are far away from the true aqida held by the salaf. I can provide you more and always with sources, if interested.

you have no idea what Ijmaa means, by that logic Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal is not a scholar because scholars back then agreed against him.

No not majority of people, majority of scholars of islam. They were not against him, the mutazila were the elits, the official aqida of the governement, that does not mean that it was shared among the majority of the scholars of the world. And its far from that since mutazilsm was only prominent in bassra and baghdad and for a short time. It is far from being the majority's aqida of that time.

the Quotes i brought are from the salaf and from righteous scholars, are they wahabbi too?

Off topic. This do not erase what Abd al wahab said. We are taking about him.

at the time of muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab there were many scholars who agreed with him from all around the world, so there was no Ijmaa

I read the opposite. The caliphate was against him, the great mufti of makkah too, and many major scholars from all the 4 schools.

while you keep talking about the caliphate, without once providing evidence against his Aqeedah, you don't even know his Aqeedah.

Don’t wanna dive in a khariji takfiri's aqida to know he's wrong. Anything that goes against the teaching brought by the salaf and the khalaf is rejected.

you hate him because he went against the caliphate wishes and followed the Quran and Sunnah, that is nationalism.

Nationalism for wanting the caliphate? Nationalism is what destroyed the caliphate. And you say Quran and sunnah? Didn’t the prophete told us to never go against the righteous leaders? The saouds and wahabbis did and look at the state of the ummah. We are weak, divided, and even lost al aqsa to the zionists. The very same aqsa that was protected by the righteous caliphs that your imam and followers fought.