If you don't understand how branding it as "Islamic" terror, despite the insignificant association between the two populations will make law-abiding Muslims (who make up about 99.99% and practise Islam) feel divided from you, I don't know what to tell you.

Ah, I see your point. Yes, using that word can easily mislead the general population. But what word would you suggest for a site (like this one) where people like to think they have a clue?

I think the tendency to label them as extremists is a step in the right direction. I prefer "extremist" alone to "Islamic extremist", because in the latter the association remains, but let's be honest that association has been cemented by the media already, it's not going away. I am not a Muslim, but live in a Western country with a lot of friends who are and can see the identity struggles they have, wanting to assimilate, but having the media drive this wedge between them and people who don't know them.

OK, I can see more clearly where you are coming from now. Thank you for clarifying. To reiterate, I don't think it's contradictory to be honest about the source of this terror whilst at the same time supporting, nay demanding, the full safety and civil liberties of muslim citizens.

If we say the source are religious extremists who have little in common with the majority of that religion, I agree with you. However, I'm getting numerous downvotes so perhaps mine is a minority viewpoint.