It takes a nation to protect the nation
I'm going to raise some questions here and see where they lead.
For starters, do medieval problems require medieval solutions? Can you deal with the Mafia without employing some ruthless Mafia style methods? These are questions to do with how the world is organised, that you can ask generally, before even coming to apply them to Islam.
Unless you are prepared to accept the constant death and mutilation of the law abiding non-Muslims in your society, it seems that you have to hand it to the Islamists, they are winning! From Iraq to Egypt, from France to the UK, from Australia to the USA, from Thailand to the Philippines, the dumb kuffar (and Muslims) are being slaughtered and abused with grinding regularity, and it seems the 'decent', moderate secular democratic authorities can't do anything about it.
Or can they? If you approach the problem as an example of Game Theory, and merely explore it in an apolitical morality judgement free environment, what are the total possible remedies, and the resulting possible outcomes, what do you find? After all, we've faced suicide attackers before in the Japanese in the 2nd World War, so is the problem really that insoluble?
Let's take one suggestion: that the mosque that a convicted terrorist attended (even if convicted after death) should be razed to the ground and its members therefore have to attend another mosque. What are the possible outcomes?
Of course, one possible negative outcome would be massed Muslim rioting and civil disorder, followed by an even more vicious campaign of terrorist attacks from the members of that mosque. Well, I leave you to make your own evaluation of what that option means.
But what about possible positive outcomes?
I leave the reader to draw his own conclusions about the merits or otherwise of those 3 positive outcomes, and their meaning, and balance them with the negative outcomes, and their meaning.
Now of course, the response to the above suggested remedy would be that it isn't fair to Muslims, and I would agree! But that is to make a statement in absolute morality, and as ? said, the only way to make statements of absolute morality is to ground your beliefs in religion - so secularists and the state should not be doing that.
However, statements of relative morality are a lot easier to make, and most people can happily do that. So shouting at someone is less bad than sticking a pin in them which is less bad than killing them.
In the same way, it is more fair to punish Muslims for the actions of one of their fellow Muslims who was also a member of their Mosque, than it is to punish me for their actions, be letting me and my loved ones be blown up, since I have zero connection to the terrorist thugs. The terrorist's fellow mosque members at least have a connection through religion and though their shared "sacred" texts, so they certainly have more culpability than I do, so they should shoulder a bigger burden.
This argument could surely be applied more widely, even, say, to the issue of the inconvenience of airport security searches. Again, I leave it to the reader to explore those options.