Not a fan of the TSA, the GWOT or any other Bush-era acronyms, but it's important to point out that you're talking regions and ideologies, not religion. Ask the Israelis why they have so few terror problems at the airports and they say "racial profiling, duh." Mention racial profiling in the United States and everyone freaks the fuck out. Which is not to say they don't do it. We're good friends with a married couple. Both are American citizens. Her parents fled the Shah; he emigrated from Morocco. Whenever I hear their travel stories I thank my pink skin. But it is to say that we have to do it sub-rosa lest the shame undermine 'MURICA.
A region is where you come from. An ideology is something you ascribe to. A religion? Something else. You can be Moroccan, you can be conservative, and you can be Islamic... but you aren't necessarily conservative just because you're Moroccan and Islamic.
I'm still not quite sure what you mean. I was talking about the incidents we associate with the words for a certain nationality and religion, like you did when you associated "Denmark" and "Muslim" with "caricatures of Mohammad". I was just pointing out what I personally associate those word pairs with, as a foreigner of the countries you were talking about.
So check it: For the most part, when Americans get their panties in a twist about Islam, it's "radical Islam" or "Islamist radicals" or "fundamentalist clerics" or "jihadists." And for the most part, when the French or the British get their panties in a twist about Islam, it's about Islam. We had that embarrassing bit with the mosque near "Freedom Tower" or whatever but by and large, Americans at least pay lip service to the notion that not all Muslims are bomb-throwing, sword-wielding, Koran-quoting zealots. There's a presupposition of sanity, albeit a thin one. France? France just up and bans the hijab. England? England calls a voluntary Muslim arbitration a "Sharia court." I'm saying there's a difference.