This has been the sentiment from others replying to that poster, and yeah, you're not totally wrong.
But while lone wolf crazies will always be a thing we just have to deal with, they are not usually united under a common banner or supported by so many like minded individuals.
This particular brand, suicide bombing, is really only doable when someone has a belief in a hereafter. Convincing non-religious people to carry out similar acts is almost impossible.
I just hate how people react to these attacks as if religion shouldn't be considered a factor and isn't important to studying why it happened.
IF religion was a factor here (and it quite probably is) I don't think we should ignore it when trying to figure out how this happened and developing strategies to try and prevent it happening again. Studies into trying to figure out how people in the west born to loving, integrated parents, are getting radicalized, are imperative and need to continue.
Labelling this 'Islamic' before we know who did it doesn't do anything to fight terrorism. But the anti Islamic rhetoric I'm seeing on my social media feeds does, as we know, tend to cause problems for innocent Brits who are unfortunate enough to look 'Muslim' to any yobbo.
That's my issue. This insistence on always using that label doesn't solve the problem of these terrorist groups we're currently facing, not one bit I don't think. But it compounds another problem.
And blaming religion on the whole is, I think, unfair. Who can say how many angry and suicidal types were convinced not to go through with similar plots due to the moral guidance and social support structure that being in a religion tends to afford?