If you were president how would you respond to the threat from ISIS?

[Xyzse]

71. Yes, though I consider improving infrastructure as a better means to prevent and mitigate disaster.

I mean, mentioning the unsexy things like improved roads, and flow of traffic to be able to get out of disaster areas.
Fixing bridges so that they don't collapse when disaster strikes.
Hospitals and triage beds, when disaster actually happens.
Fire Fighters and Policing improvements particularly in regards to intelligence gathering would be a better means of preventing disaster.

Striking people through bombing and doing that type of strikes to me merely increases the threat to the US. Generally due to the ones involved in the collateral damage and what is seen as American over-handed and heartless intervention.

If I had to do it, I would, but this tends to hit a larger group rather than actually getting the problem.
Like I said, taking actions to prevent another disaster does not mean a military option or an attack.

Still, I take your point in helping allies in the area and finding stability.
Problem is, I am not convinced that those we are helping are indeed the allies that we should be fostering.
In certain ways, like I mentioned earlier, till the area finds a state of equilibrium and a solid group that can stabilize the area (does not matter their policies), I would foster a relationship with them first, before influencing their policies. Those can come later.