Agreed, an accurate description alone won't solve the problem. However, refusal to adequately define the enemy makes the problem of fighting and beating an enemy unsolvable.Arguing whether you should say radicals or radical muslims is pretty irrelevant in how to actually solve the problem. So it is just arguing semantics that have no purpose in actually solving the problem. This is silly according to me. Describe them how you wish, the description won't solve the problem.
Some cut and paste Tzu is not required here; knowing the enemy, the level of threat, their abilities, their motivation, is common sense. One type of radical, say the Weather Underground, consisted of a few like minded upper class individuals who made a ~dozen bombs to blow up a few people and buildings around a single issue. Another, the Unabomber, sits in a remote cabin in the woods recruiting nobody, limited to murder and mutilation via the mail. Radical Islamic Jihadists demand tyrannical control over a nation state, actively preach world domination by that state along with the end of times, recruit from the margins of a billion Muslims worldwide via a twisted religious message.18. Hence the saying: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
Treating all these groups the same is bound to fail to arrest/eliminate them.