I think this form of historical revisionism is difficult because you can keep going back to an earlier point and say that X would not have happened if Y did not happen, and it removes blame from groups that are actively contributing to terrorist attacks.
However, it is without a doubt that ISIS would not exist in their capacity today had the US not toppled Saddam Hussein. Toppling Saddam Hussein led to a power grab by Al Qaeda in Iraq, which the US occupying force managed to keep at bay. ISIS split from Al Qaeda in Iraq officially in 2014, though the military wing of ISIS had operated independently for at least a couple of years before that... Which is part of what prompted Obama to embarrassingly say that ISIS is the "junior varsity squad" of Al Qaeda.
But you can also point at other events that contributed to the growth of ISIS, for instance, the Arab Spring. The US has added some 20 terrorist organizations to its list of global terrorist groups since the Arab Spring... that's far more than any time in contemporary history. Undoubtedly, populist and democratic movements in Arab countries was something to celebrate, but many of them created power vacuums that have since allowed for extremism to be unfettered by the anti-democratic despotism that had previously existed. Hosni Mubarak was a dictator, but he also jailed thousands of Islamists; Saddam Hussein was a butcher and dictator, but his Baathist party had maintained the pretense of secularism and squashed isurgent uprisings in Iraq (along with peaceful uprisings as well); Bashar al-Asad was much more effective at containing Islamist extremists before he was popularly opposed by other democratic or progressive forces in Syria, yet, Assad is a dictator.
But then, we can also go back further. Salafism, the jihadist ideology that is typically seen as the root of many of these terrorist attacks throughout Europe and the world, shares a lot of its growth from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It's easy to ask, "Well had the US not emboldened the Afghani mujaheddin, would we not see terrorist organizations sprout up 20 years later?" That's probably true to some extent. But had the Soviet Union not rolled tanks into Afghanistan, would there have been any need for a populist, Muslim, jihadist uprising to begin with? And what would have happened if the Soviet Union crumbled in 1991 and the Taliban took over then, rather than a decade before? We can continue to go back decades and ask other questions... Had the UK and US not supported the Shah when he lost in 1953, would there have been an Islamic uprising 30 years later, or would Iran have never recognized the state of Israel and instead have joined in destroying Israel with other Arab powers? Had the US not separated itself from the Shah in the 1970s, would he have been over-thrown by an Islamic revolution in 1978; would that country still be the financing source of a half-dozen terrorist organizations around the middle east, prompting further financing from rival groups? Further back, would the US have been involved if European powers had not colonized the Arab world and then swiftly fallen apart after two European wars? Are we going to pin the rise of Islamic extremism on the Ottoman Empire, then?
Orientalism is a double-edged sword. The Western tendency to look at the near east as a land of mystery that is unfit to govern itself (or can be governed better by Western liberal sensibilities), is the same tendency that makes us look at the Middle East and say "Would terrorism exist if the West hadn't done X?" But this tendency also removes culpability from the the groups and organizations that are financing, planning, and executing these acts of terror.
