When two airplanes hit the twin towers of the World Trade Centre in New York, utter shock engulfed the whole of America. As more and more details rolled out the initial shock transformed into sadness and then disbelief. The overwhelming majority of the Muslim community experienced similar conflicting sentiments. It soon drew to excuses and escapes, reasons and revulsion.

The then-President, George W. Bush, addressed the nation the same night. He started off saying that the American way of life and freedom were under attack. "The victims were in airplanes or in their offices -- secretaries, businesspersons, military and federal workers, moms and dads, friends and neighbours."

Nine days later, speaking before a joint session of Congress, President Bush ticked off a list of foes, including al-Qaeda. The wave of fear that was spreading throughout the Muslim community was temporarily abated. The president declared: "the terrorists are traitors of their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them."

What the administration did do in later months is well known to the world now. It bombarded Afghanistan, negotiated with the Taliban, attacked Iraq and so on. The glorified leader of the terrorist organisation, Osama bin Laden, was taken out in the end.

Many wondered if the strategy to combat terrorism was worthwhile. Rather than a foreign government, the enemy was an ideology that could not be curbed with guns or brigades. The mightiest of world powers used many means to combat the threat, both legal and illegal, from prisons to torture tactics to political compromises and bribery, yet, neither America nor the rest of the world became any safer. In President Bush’s words, the war on terror did not end there. Soon enough, another lethal group, ISIS emerged. The group has the same extremist agenda as of al-Qaeda and enjoys a loose following, especially in the western countries.

Earlier this month, another surprise attack -- declared as an act of terrorism on American soil by officials, left 14 people dead. The attack, as reported, was inspired by the ISIS ideology that radicalised a Muslim American citizen and his wife. The unfolding of the attack had the Muslim population on toes. The growing fear of a backlash started seeping in immediately. The administration announced a multi-pronged plan this time. President Obama appeared before the nation from the Oval Office -- a setting meant to underscore the seriousness of the subject. Speaking about the California carnage, he said: "They [victims] were taken from family and friends who loved them deeply. They were white and black; Latino and Asian; immigrants and American-born; moms and dads; daughters and sons. Each of them served their fellow citizens and all of them were part of our American family."

He addressed the fear factor, urging Muslims to help root out radicalisation and asked the nation to reject discrimination. He said: "the vast majority of terrorist victims around the world are Muslim. If we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and hate."

One knee-jerk reaction to the shooting was the move to revise visa policy. The female shooter had entered into the States on a K-1 (fiancée visa), a fast but temporary permit. Even though there are mandatory background checks in place, the investigations are superficial and cannot screen for radical ideas. Hundreds of such visa-hopefuls are now under suspicion and increased scrutiny for no legitimate reason. The airport checks and scrutiny has been further tightened. "I think in these situations, and particularly in the current era of instant gratification in which we live, people thirst for some sort of reassurance that something will be done to stop very scary things from happening," said Michael Kugelman, Senior Associate for South and Southeast Asia at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Up until now, in addition to the San Bernardino shooters, there had been three people of Pakistani origin that had staged or attempted terror in the US. They were Aimal Kansi, Faisal Shahzad and David Hadley. This one also became a homegrown radicalism scenario.

Related article: 9/11 all over again

The investigation that followed revealed that one of the shooters was a US citizen. The couple exploited the country’s permissive gun laws, and the assistance of a neighbour who had also been radicalised to amass a wide range of arms, ammunition and explosives. The Los Angeles Times called it a scenario that the Obama administration dreaded. "Homegrown, self-radicalised individuals operating without any direction from or communications with foreign jihadists that would help make them detectable."

It’s a dilemma of such a huge magnitude that The New York Times printed an editorial on its front page -- something that had not happened in almost 100 years. The editorial board was direct and precise, asking the administration to end the gun epidemic: "It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as took of macho vigilantism and even insurrection… Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, act of terrorism."

President Obama in his speech limited himself to say, "We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures. But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies -- no matter how effective they are -- cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology. What we can do -- and must do -- is make it harder for them to kill."

Congress was quick to propose changes in the visa process but the gun control plea fell on deaf ears. Obama’s speech was widely criticised. The core issue once again took a back seat while Muslim community feel singled out. As The Atlantic magazine’s James Fallow commented, "the real ambition [of an attack] is to terrorise -- to provoke, to disorient, to tempt a society or government to lose sight of its long-term values and interests."

Obama "faces a hyperpartisan environment in which pro-gun opposition politicians will obstruct any reforms he tries to put into place. Also, the gun lobby is one of the most powerful lobbies in America, and it effectively has a stranglehold over Washington and makes it practically impossible to implement any meaningful gun reforms," says Michael Kugelman.

The overheated rhetoric doubled down when Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump called to ban Muslims from entering into the US. His views were immediately condemned by all quarters and denounced by members of both the Democratic and Republic parties. Meanwhile, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton echoed President Obama’s words saying: "At a time when America should be doing everything we can to fight radical jihadists, Trump is supplying them with new propaganda. He’s playing right into their hands."

However, the majority of American people have been sympathising and understanding towards the Muslim community so far. There are fewer incidents where Muslims were singled out, while others are grappling with the fact that Muslims need to propagate a counter-narrative now.

According to a poll conducted by Shibley Telhami, a nonresident senior fellow with the Project on US relations with the Islamic World: Americans differentiate between the ‘Muslim people’ and the ‘Muslim religion,’ and they view Islam more unfavourably than they do Muslims. This may have many reasons but at the core, it is probably easier for many Americans -- with strong anti-discrimination norms, to express dislike of an abstract idea rather than to appear prejudiced toward people.