Well my first advice is despite the urgency of this situation, to give it pray to God and not let yourself worry to much over the situation, pray for oppressed by violence, both those subjected to violence and those committing it (who often swap places often enough), both being dehumanized and dominated by the violence, the language of violence and the support of violence, justifications raised in it’s name, the dehumanization of the other and so. Pray that God delivers them and bring peace and reconciliation and true justice and delivers all from death (and if you know specific names give those to, I still pray for both hostages and the woman terrorist, her child and child to come and her husband that God might protect those they might harm from them, and that he would deliver them from the darkness they trapped in, and subjection to the idolatry of violence and the idol of God that supports it).
After that I would leave it to Him and try and largely forget about it, rather than dwell on it, and let it become something that can add to depression and a sense of helplessness. Rather focus on helping where you can around you, and as you can, you may think such actions don’t make a difference, but they do, after all if you help bring a positive change into someone’s life, you change the world for that person, and that is a massive thing. In all problems we must never loss sight of the persons, and that they are persons, each uniquely showing forth the image of God in their own way, and in touching their lives in love you manifest the Kingdom.
In short, pray over it, and than leave it to God is my main advice here, and possibly give to a humanitarian charity involved in aid if you are able (but don’t bankrupt yourself or such thinking it’s all your responsibility).
The following is a bit polemical I recognize, and indeed because I was worried over seeming to attack others to strongly I stop posting in my old thread, so I don’t intend to start any arguments, I understand other Christians have other views, which I disagree with passionately, but respect everyone here greatly, as everyone here all amazing and loving people and wonderful Christians, better than I am. So I hope everyone just understands this is just my passionate view on the subject).
As to the question of violence, I have to disagree with the above, it is no secret to those here my views on the subject of violence (I created a thread to address it earlier last year), and very much don’t agree that loving your enemies, doing good to those who hate you, blessing those who curse you, praying for those who abuse you, that the following is or could ever mean just for personal relation (as if other relations are not between persons, which is one the great tricks of war and promotion of war and violence, dehumanize and depersonalize the other and demonise them), that is to him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and to him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your coat as well. Give to everyone who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods, do not ask them again. As you wish that others would do to you, do so to them. Jesus was and did launch the Kingdom of God, this was a national thing for Israel, He’s was proclaiming that hoped for Kingdom of God had come, the coming of YHVH back to Israel, the forgiveness of sins (again a national and indeed global thing) and the renewal of Israel, and showed in action what it was like, just what the rule and nature of the Kingdom looks like, and what being human looks like. The Sermon of the Mount was national instruction to Israel, the people of God, of how they should be, and calling all the change their minds and come in, the very announcement of the gospel (and the titles Lord and Saviour) were a direct confrontation with Caesar, and his servants, the corrupt Priesthood and the Herodian house. As those were Ceasar’s titles, he was Lord of the world, he was proclaimed saviour of the world, and the Caesar cult announced the gospel of his peace, when Jesus refers in John’s Gospel to ‘now is the prince of this world cast out’ He no doubt has the Satan in mind, but He more directly is referring to the one in behind whom those dark accusing forces lurk and work through, to Caesar. He follows this with act of symbolic judgement in the Temple, the meaning is clear, the Kingdom of God has come, and all this would have be familiar to the revolutionaries and the population themselves, this is part of they expected and saw in many such Messianic movements (and would see again), with the later Bar Kokbra revolt, first he declared the Kingdom and lead the fight against the Romans, and minted coins with temple image, and beginning with year 0, next their aim would be to attempt to rebuild the temple and God would grant dominion to the Israel and the Kingdom would come in fullness (and those who followed him and his movement were the renewed true Israel and those who didn’t were not). The temple never was rebuilt though (this was 132-35 AD), and there was a year 1 coin and year 2, but not a year 3, the Romans came and did what empires do to all that oppose them, send in the troops and destroy all their opposition and the Romans were infamous in the ancient world for their brutality and viciousness to those that opposed them, the Jews were crushed, genocide was brought to them again, Judea was renamed for good, and they expelled from the land (the 2nd Diaspora) and for a time Jerusalem itself was renamed, and Rabbi Akiba was anointed him was flayed alive, and many other leaders were tortured to death. Interesting this probably marks a moment of a definitive splitting (in terms of not been seen as separate religions) of the ways between Christianity and the rabbic Talmudic Judaism that were both coming out of 2nd Temple Judaism, as the Jewish Christians did not support Bar Kokbra (and suffered persecution from both sides, their own people who saw them as traitors, and the Romans who did see much of a difference).
But here is where Jesus was radically different, it wasn’t that He made the idea the Kingdom is just spiritual, at least not as some imagine, rather these very words such as the beatitudes are both confronting the invaders and the corrupt priesthood, and the violent revolutionaries who thought they could use the methods of the enemy in order to defeat the enemy. Jesus reject that path outright, showing the deeper and truer enemy subjecting all humanity, and in this context, the context of a land under one of the most brutal military invasion and occupation imaginable, one where families were enslaved, people were being tortured and crucified regularly, massacres were common, casual violence and the subjection of the native people to second class citizens where massive abuse was common-place, if ever violence action could be considered justified it was here, and for many it was just that, enemies where many, numerous and close at hand, yet it is in this context, to these people the Jesus rejects violence, as behind all the powers and abuses lies the real enemy, death, and to use it’s tools is to join it’s tyranny and bring it’s destruction upon yourself and those around you (just as other dehumanizing actions). He rejected the revolutionaries (later the Zealots though at this time they were not wholly distinguished from other movements), He came to confront the tyranny of the world empires, where instead of beginning human they had become monsters (and by using the title Son of Man was directly involving the vision of Daniel, where God raises up the human figure, defeating the monsters the empires have become, setting and bring humans back to their true position over creation), and warned in apocalyptic language the fate of those who embraced death in it’s various ways (either giving in a collaborating with the corruption and evil abuses of room, or of taking up the violence of the invaders against them, in either way embracing and collaborating with death and the enemy), that destruction awaited and wept for Jerusalem for this very reason. When he told people that if someone demanded you take their pack from one mile, take it two, this was a direct reference to the Roman occupying soldiers, and finally coming to Jerusalem, the Apostles, who generally were expecting something very different through the ministry, sharing the exceptions of their culture, particularly at this time of pain, hoping for something like the Maccabean revolt only greater (it’s one of the reason they so often get this wrong and misunderstand, and I think we really shouldn’t be so hard on Peter and co sometimes, the Kingdom coming in the way it did was on no one’s map or realm of thought, a crucified, defeated Messiah, dying at the hands of the Gentile invaders, unthinkable to any 1st century Jew) James and John come (or their mother for them 
) demanding to be on Jesus’ right and left, when He comes into His Kingdom (basically when he lead the defeat of the Romans and set up His Kingdom in the manner of the future Bar Kokbra, Jesus out tells them they don’t know what they are asking, to take the same baptism as He, but that being right and left of Him when He comes into His Kingdom has already been decided He was right. When the Lord did confront the corrupt priesthood, the abusive Herod and and the idol of Caesar through Pilate, when all the aspects of death and evil were gathered about Him and let loss that night, a battle was joined, and a clash of two Kingdoms, and where He is crowned King and comes into His Kingdom, declared King of the Jews, with what the Romans meant for mockery enacting the truth (no first century hearer of the Gospel could miss the significance of having the centurion declare that Jesus was truly the son of God, for Jews with was the title of the Messiah, and a Roman bowing to it, and for Gentiles it was Caesar’s title alone, and one of his solders declaring that in reality, in the moment of the crucifixion that Jesus is the true son of God, that He is Lord and Caesar is not, it and the Resurrection following is the victory they were hoping for, but not one they looked for. And at Jesus right and his left as He comes into His Kingdom are the two thieves, truly John and James had no idea then what they were asking for.]
And following the commotion this causes among His disciples, Jesus goes on to explain that the kings of the Gentiles lord it over everyone, and their officials dictate to everyone, but that it shall not be so with them, instead in the new Kingdom, the new creation and age being launched whoever wants to be great must the servant of the other, and whoever would be the greatest must be the slave of all, just as the Son of Man came not to be served to to serve, and give His life as a ransom for many. This is a clash of two different ways of being, one of death and one life, and Jesus calls those who follow Him to life self-giving and self-sacrificing love and service, to witness to the truth even to the point of death, even in the conflict with those who are your enemies, national or otherwise. To love them, bless them when cursed, pray for them when they persecute you, and forgive them.
This He follows when He is arrested, Peter takes up the sword and rashly runs in and attacks one of the soldiers, Jesus stops Him, tells him to drop the sword and heals the soldier, and tells Peter that all who live by the sword, will die by it, that is His response to violence, He shows the Kingdom. And Peter never again took up the sword, or ever took violence to anyone not even to his own martyrdom at the hands of Nero. Jesus continued this with the confrontation with Pilate, where they talk about Kingdom and Truth, Jesus stands witness to the truth and the injustice of Pilate, the Sanhedrin, Herod and Rome, the violence of the revolutionaries, Pilate asks if He is a King, and what had He done, Jesus replies that His Kingdom not from this world, it isn’t the sort that grows here, because if it was His follower (us) would have risen up and fought to stop Him being handed over, rising against the Romans and the soldiers of the Temple and Herod in violent resistance. But His Kingdom is not from this world, it is not of subject to or part of the ways of death that the kingdoms of this world are subject to. And when Pilate declares then He is a King, Jesus declares He was born to give evidence to the Truth, and all who listen to the Truth listen to His voice.
And Christians unanimous as far as we know for the first 300 years understood the prohibition against violence and to love our enemies to be absolute, Terullian declared that when Christ took the sword out of Peter’s hand he took it out of the hand of every soldier, denying the use of violence to all, and people who became Christians when they were soldiers and magistrates could not take or cause to be taken, someone else’s life, if they were a soldier under authority they were not to kill a man, if ordered to they were to refuse, nor take an oath to Caesar, if they were unwilling they were to be rejected until they repented. If they a person with the power of the sword or a magistrate they were not cease or be rejected, and catechumens (learners into Christianity) who wanted to be soldiers were to be rejected, because in desiring to shed blood they have despised God. St Marcellus is one of the most famous examples of a soldier who a Christian was martyred for this position and reflects this view. In his trial to his comrade Lucius he said the following, ’ Lucius, you have been my friend for eight years in the Legion. I thank you for that. Never has there been a more loyal companion in any battalion. We’ve fought together, marched together, been ready to die together every day in service to the Empire. We’ve spilled rivers of blood, and I, just as you, thought of the enemies of Rome as little more than dogs to be slain.
Lucius: But they are enemies. Even if you are now a Christian, you can’t tell me that you love them now.
Marcellus: They are children of God.
Lucius: They’ve killed our friends.
Marcellus: As we’ve killed theirs. And God is willing to forgive.
Lucius: Well, the vice-praetorian prefect is right over there, and he’s not going to be forgiving.
Marcellus : It doesn’t matter. Christ is my commander now, and I will not betray him. You have heard the words of the Master; how he said to love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. Now that I belong to Him, I must turn the other cheek.
and before the vice-praetorian prefect declared: ’ It is not proper for a Christian man, one who fears the Lord Christ, to engage in earthly military service. What I have stated before to the praeses Fortunatus, I now state before you. I am a Christian, and call only upon the true God and King, Jesus Christ, whom I love more than all the honor and riches of this world. By His law and command, we are forbidden to take another man’s life or even to bear arms. By His example, we are taught to forgive those who harm us, and have mercy upon our enemies. Those who call upon His name are children of peace, with no ill will toward anyone upon earth. Those who are conformed to the image of Christ know of no weapons other than patience, hope and love – and these are only weapons to break the flinty hearts that never have been affected by the heavenly dew of the holy word. We know of no vengeance, however we may be wronged. We do not ask for vengeance, but with Christ we pray, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.’
The concept of the instruction of Jesus only applying in personal terms was never know and would not have made sense in the world and understanding of the early Christians, it is only later pressures of being involved in earthly government that caused debates and the slow introduction of the idea of ‘just war’ appeared, though even at it’s formulation it was an impossible to truly achieve, and since medieval times and the arms that have multiplied since then it is outright ridiculously to even believe the conditions of ‘just war’ can ever be meet with any seriousness, and it set the ground-work of the theology behind the crusades (thought of course the people who at first formulated theories of just war would have been horrified what happened to those ideas as they developed, which all the more highlights the tragedy for Christians to have even began thinking along these lines).
Elsewhere in the East this was somewhat avoided, but even there often a view came eventually to prevail (though not unchallenged, just as just war was not unchallenged in the West) that the lesser evil could be allowed for defense under the idea of okonimia (economy) but the soldiers were required to repent afterwards (and sometimes would be bared from taking Communion of a few years). However though this did have the blessing of preventing the development of ideas of crusade, it still priests and bishops, serving before the altar at Communion, were required to represent the Christian life more truly without allowances allowed outside, still blessing a violence they wouldn’t take part in because it was evil, and it is a whole idea and practice we never see applied to any other area in Christian life. We don’t see people told it’s okay if they plan ahead of time to commit adultery, or to steal or deceive (not mind you, that they fall into it, or are tempted, but rather before anything plan to do such an action and are given an okay, their marriage was bad and they love another women so they are given an okay with just a because it’s a lesser evil), it’s ridiculously and would be rejected as such, and conniving and colluding with evil and death, but in this one thing for centuries, and this which has leads to hurt, pain, the orphaning of children and the destruction of those in the image and likeness of God, allowance has so often been given, and even blessed. It has rightfully muddied the witness of Christians for years on this situation, and in my opinion is one of the least talked against and most enduring and critical problem among Christians. It leads many groups to cry to the heavens about abortion but to say little to nothing to bombs our countries drop killing children abroad, indeed had we dropped contraceptives in the Middle East the reaction of the Roman Catholic Church would have been, at least in the past far more definite, loud and clear in it’s opposition. Pro-life should mean pro-life, and yet it is not for many, Christians declare many other thing that are more debatable with far more certainly, but here in one of the clearest instructions of the Lord, even more so in the context He said it, how often has it been rationalized and compartmentalized away, and watered down, when we are told not to resist evil, it means something else. This is tragedy to me, and Christianity will always have a weak voice in relation to conflict and violence as long is it joins in and bows to the idol of war, you cannot met death with death, violence with violence, all you do is create more death and violence, more hate and pain, more wounds and destroyed families, more wounded in every sense, more soldiers with horrific memories, and civilians who’s communities are destroyed.
But sadly, as long as once side of a debate advocates a violence solution, there will be violence, so in some respects the debate is pointless, as long as some believe that a violence response is justified in some circumstances, or is a necessary evil, it will happen, and as long there are debates among Christians about legitimate war, there will be Christian support for war, and committing violence, aiding death, not trusting in the truth of the Resurrection and all that means.
In terms of a non-violent action, I’d recommend this article as start for ideas:
clarion-journal.com/clarion_ … kblad.html
jimandnancyforest.com/2014/07/learning-to-love/
And in terms of northern Iraq specifically the following:
clarion-journal.com/clarion_ … lager.html
