Of course it's not a coincidence that a lit of terrorism is associated with Islam. But it's not to do with anything inherent in Islam. It is a function of historical circumstance.
Before the second world war, pan-Arabic identity was largely secular.
Then during the cold war, the area became strategically important, we (the west ) became involved in propping up unpleasant, corrupt regions in order to keep their resources away from the soviets. This created a lot of ill feeling towards the west, but not particularly with an Islamic character. The Iranian embassy bombers were regional separatists not islamists.
Palestinian terrorism was early Marxist, and what Islamist there was was largely internally focussed, or connected to Lebanon where there was conflict between religious groups (there is one area where you can see various religions behaving equally badly).
That all changed with the end of the cold war. We suddenly didn't NEED to prop up these regimes any more, so they latched onto Islamism as a way to keep populations focused externally, building on the conflict in Lebanon, and resentment of the west support of Israel.
If the area had been Christian, and we had been another religion with a history of conflict with them, we could have got exactly the same results.
Do you think patriarchal community leaders in rural Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan would be any more liberal if they were a different religion? Are warlord in the tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan behaving any differently to how they used to behave before they became Muslims?
The problem is NOT to do with Islam. It's a geopolitical one, in which Islam us a tool.