My one argument is "Muslims do not pose a terrorist threat any more than any other major religion or ideology."
I'll address the more extreme/on a another level/super terrorist angle to save time. I don't think ISIS is fundamentally different from past groups. Most notorious terrorist groups were more extreme than previous groups.
Below are the rest of the non-existing arguments i apparently have never made. They are in many ways tied together. Not that many sentences. I'm sure you're capable of reading them all. That way we can save time when i don't have to quote myself in the future in response.
"Muslims do not pose a terrorist threat any more than any other major religion or ideology. On any given time and area one of them most likely shows the strongest correlation with recent attacks. Since the beginning of "private" terrorism around 1850 that top spot has changed multiple times. Since the beginning gender has shown stronger correlation in almost all time periods and geographical areas.
Even though it is extremely likely that any given random terrorist attack is done by a male terrorist, it is extremely unlikely that any random male is a terrorist. For me it would be silly to claim that men pose a terrorist threat. Because i think that, it would be even sillier to claim that a group that shows an even weaker correlation to current attacks would pose a terrorist threat.
And in case you're wondering, i do think that ISIS poses a terrorist threat. Dealing with those 50k deranged individuals can be done without fucking with 1,6 billion mostly harmless Muslims. Fucking with the 1,6b feeds in to that 50k and it keeps doing the 50k's information warfare for them."