Radical Islamic Terror:It's a Thing, Liberals

I feel like I understand the liberal concern with using the phrase 'Radical Islamic Terrorism'. They feel like it marginalizes and 'others' a minority group, and does a disservice to Islam as a religion. I also think this concern is a mistake. Christians have had to deal with the phrase 'radical Christianity' for years. The 'right' and the 'left of our political spectrum has also had to endure having the word 'radical' ascribed to their particular worldviews. Where was this concern then? The fact is that there is such a thing as 'radical Islamic terror', and it is something our country needs to be concerned with. Maybe it is blown up and used as a tool by the right to bolster their own power, but it is real. To acknowledge the radical element of an ideology is not an insult to the foundation ideology. It is a radical element of that ideology. It is acceptable to note this. By being offended by this phrase, liberals not only give cover to radicals within that religion, they also cede the ground of reasonableness to the opposition. Also, by adding this phrase to their stable of protected-class no-no words, they do a disservice to deservedly protected classes, like LGBTQ, racial minorities, women, and the handicapped within the zeitgeist. All of these are natural orientations. Radical Islamism is a chosen worldview. Islamophobia is a justifiable term, because it pertains to the wholesale fear and delegitimization of an entire religion, and usually extends to a certain kind of racism and xenophobia. There is nothing wrong with using the term 'radical Islamic terror'. Let's take the words one at a time. I am personally a radical leftist. Is the word radical wrong? No. Is the word leftist wrong? No. Personally, I don't even think all acts of terror are always wrong. Think of Harper's Ferry. So what's wrong with accepting the phrase 'radical Islamic terror? It's a legitimate descriptor of an actual movement, and it's a descriptor liberals haven't hesitated to use on other radical branches of an ideology. In the popular imagination, the liberal refusal to accept this phrase looks a lot like either collusion, or pollyannishness. This gives your adversaries the ideological high ground. Accept the term, and learn how to talk about it while making distinctions you feel need to be made. That's the only way to make this world and this country safer and better. Of course, I'd love to hear dissenting views.