If there were no Muslims, there would be almost no terror attacks. Conversely, if there were more Muslims, there would be more terror attacks.
We've banned this account for violating the HN guidelines after many requests to stop.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorisme_en_France (link to the French one, the English version is shorter)
Only looking at post-WWII, you have far-right groups, far-left groups, Corsican regionalists, Basque regionalists, various independentists (Breton, New Caledony, Caribbean, etc.), extension of the Algerian civil war of the 90s, etc. Those account for hundreds of attacks, with a various amount of deads. Only recently have Islamist attacks begun. The most lethal single attack until today in France was in fact from a far-right group in the 60s.
Religion - any particular one, or at all - is neither necessary nor sufficient for brutal violence or its prevention.
To whom - you? Based on what? Logic? You've made no argument. Based on an untested model of psychology bouncing around in your head?
The terrorists themselves claim a religious muslim tradition. The best you have is that they're brainwashed victims, because, well, there's lots of other muslims who don't become terrorists?
You have no basic reasoning capabilities yourself. At least the poster you were responding to had a correlation. You have nothing.
And other terrorists claim other traditions. We could look at all those traditions as unrelated, unconnected causes of terrorism because, hey, that's what each of the terrorists said was important to them -- or we could look for common features that link them to try to understand why people become terrorists.