If that's so, you should have no problem applying it to the case at hand. So tell us how you would define extremism, based on these principles. Should be "relatively simple."
I will not define extremism as I have just stated in my previous post that it will be impossible to do so.
Do you want your country to be invaded for natural resources?
Do you want to be suppressed, imprisoned, killed if you don't follow a creed/ideology not your own?
Do you want mercenaries in your country that don't care what or whom they fight for as long as they get paid?
You can add questions that provide you with guidance on how you should act.
You will now say, that's all fine, but neither the ISIS extremist nor the Blackwater (or whatever the current name of that company is) merc will give a damn about this.
Depending on how extreme the action of 'the other' is, the answer needs to be based. You can't argue with someone who goes about decapitating someone in the open street. But your answer needs to be less extreme - you will not decapitate him in return. He'll go to prison. If he can't be stopped decapitating people, you'll shoot him in the attempt. But you won't slowly drive a tank over him, burn him alive, nor shoot him if you can stop him by other means.
If you send people out to confront ISIS in Syria or other places, you do not send ones that have a business interest in war happening. You don't flatten a city quarter to dispose of the 100 ISIS terrorists inside. You might think about allocating more resources to acting against people becoming radicalized and stop cash and resources reaching them, which takes more time, is more difficult, but likely brings more 'bang for the buck' [pun intended].
von Marwitz