[TomGuy]

That is the crux of the problem: Is there really a distinction? If so, then the "peaceful" Islamics should take responsibility for policing their religion and exorcise those who taint and bastardize the true Islamic religion.

However, since the "peaceful" Islamics remain relatively silent in regard to their fellow 'radical Islamic' brethren, I go with a quote from Robert Bolt attributed to Sir Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons:

Sir Thomas More: ... The maxim is "Qui tacet consentiret": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied.

[weegee]

There is also a telling question in Kurt Vonegut's Mother Night, in which a disaffected American playwright living in Germany before WWII is approached about working for the Americans as an undercover agent.

The playwright holds allegiance to "the nation of two" (him and his wife) but accepts the offer. He essentially rises to the rank of a propagandist on par with Lord Haw Haw, spewing Nazi hate in English over the radio. He sends out coded messages based on coughs, pauses, and inflections; messages that even he is unaware he is sending, they are coded by an undisclosed speech writer.

Only 3 people know of his placement, one is the agent who approaches him, one is FDR, and I don't recall the third.

He encounters the agent at a few key points in his life. In one of these encounters (where the author is denying any sympathies for the Nazis), the agent asks him what he would've done if the Nazis had won. Would he have then stood up to their regime and announced his rejection of their world view?

What of the silent peaceful muslims? Would they become the new terrorists striking down Islamic rule if the extremists get their way?

[twigs]

This author gets it. I think he would agree with what you've written and quoted.