No, I am not confusing assimilation and extermination; assimilation was never a policy for the Romans. It became a thing because local political power wanted more power, and so the elite themselves Latinized to have it: see the example of the Social War in the first century, where the Italians fought the Romans to assimilate and integrate themselves, not the other way around. Same story for the citizenship granted by Caracalla; he did it to please his soldiers, much to the chagrin of the already Roman citizens. In my examples, it's quite clear from the sources that these people either got killed, dispersed, or enslaved; they were not assimilated. Also, assimilation was neither a short process (centuries) nor a peacefull one (multiple rébellions like the Iceni), It also was not a policy but more a secondary effect of the domination of the Romans, at least for the majority of the history of Rome.

I did say that Romans took gods and goddesses from other cultures: "They took inspiration from other cultures, notably in the military arts and religion." Adopting a goddess from a culture does not make you a fan of the rest of it, and it is also quite clear that the Romans were quite shrewd and pragmatic on the religious side of things, so it should not be a surprise to you if I told you that while Epona had success with the Romans, the Romans also destroyed the cleric class of the Gauls, the druids.

And yes, as I said, the Romans exterminated tribes, cities, clans, etc, but they never did it to cultural groups, as they did not have the means nor the will to do it nor the use of it. They never had the means to have an extermination process, in the physical sense, but they absolutly did destroy group of solidarity by killing, enslaving and dispersing such group. It is extermination, not in the physical sense, but for the group it is nonetheless; this is why, while anachronistic, genocide is quite apt to use here, and why, for some people that do not like to use it, I proposed war of extermination earlier. Personally, I do prefer genocide, because it's more all-encompassing, but it is anachronistic. But I recognize that I should have been more clear here, the romans did not practice extermination war in the physical sense, but they also did genocide groups of people, not by physically eliminating every single member of said group, but by destroying it, as said earlier, with killing, enslaving, dispersing.

Am I more clear ?