Peace, of course, does not equal terrorism, by definition. But pacifism, which can be described as "peaceful behavior despite all costs," provides nourishment to terrorism.
When an enemy wishes you dead because you simply exist, and proves it in action, that enemy has already rejected civilized appeals to any "better nature" they might possess. Therefore, attempts by pacifists to tie the hands of our defenders make the terrorists' task easier. It is axiomatic. The statement "pacifism = pro-terrorist" has, in reality, little to do with what the pacifists "expect" to be the outcome of their actions. Such posturing is its own reward to them, because it flatters their egos and vision of the world, consequences be damned.
Look at it this way. A police sharpshooter atop a tower trains his sights on a crazed gunman below who has already killed people. The pacifist urges the sharpshooter to drop his rifle, citing such inanities as "perpetuating the cycle of violence" and other threadbare mantras. While the outcome of additional innocent deaths is likely not the pacifist's desire, he furthers that end because he is unwilling to make a moral judgement. He confuses physical equivalence with moral equivalence - and cowers in a paralysis that might eventually cost him his own life. And the result of the pacifist's actions, if successful, are not very different than if an accomplice of the crazed gunman were to wrestle the sharpshooter's rifle from his hands.
Conservatives tend to label others by the incentives their actions are perceived to create. Liberals label others by the dispositions they perceive others to possess. This is an important distinction to keep in mind.