(First off, I know the point that’s being made here, and I’m not trying to step on it. At the same time, I feel it needs to be expanded on a little, laying out the implications - those on one side of the remark, at least - in explicit, blunt terms to make the severity of the fact unavoidable.)
We shouldn’t have to. It’s insane that a good number of us do have to. Frankly, those that don’t are either fortunate for the kind of people they’re surrounded by (and the kind of people they aren’t exposed to), or have a stubborn streak stronger than our preservation instinct.
As for the rest of us, there are a disturbing amount of people who believe that if we aren’t intensely apologetic for the actions of individuals whose worldviews and ideologies are as compatible with ours as those of, say, the Westboro Baptist Church, or the KKK:
1) We’re sympathisers with their cause and their actions.
2) We’re terrorists with bomb plans stowed away somewhere, and are a threat to their culture, their way of life and freedom everywhere.
3) That’s reason enough for assault and upwards: including (at the lower end of the spectrum) the kind of bust up that leaves us capable of limping away if we’re fortunate; firebombings; groups of likeminded individuals stalking for the opportunity to catch us on our own repeatedly and make an ongoing sport of it; or if they’re not really in a place in their life to make that kind of commitment, more terminal means. Or really, any number of other, more creative things they might have come up with.
(Although #3 is a strong possibility with them regardless of whether or not we apologise for other people’s actions.)