This is coolbert:
As obtained from a quick perusal of various Internet web sites the point of view of the pacifist toward ISIL. When confronted by violence a response with violence is not now or EVER warranted?
1. "How do pacifists think we should react to ISIS?"
"By doing what any other pacifist would do. Nothing. Believe it or not that is the best solution to defeat ISIL."
2. "Is There a Nonviolent Response to ISIS?"
"Erin Niemela proposes these three commonsense pathways to peace"
1) "Immediately stop sending funds and weapons to all involved parties."
2) "Fully invest in social and economic development initiatives in any region in which terrorist groups are engaged."
3) "Fully support any and all nonviolent civil society resistance movements."
3. "Practical Pacifism: How We Defeat ISIL"
"We’re glad people are asking this question, because we have a great answer. How can pacifists defeat ISIL?"
"Answer: carefully and slowly."
4. "A Pacifist Response to the Islamic State"
"So what’s the alternative? If crushing the Islamic State under the weight of all the western military can throw at it will only produce something worse in the end, what other option can there be that doesn’t allow the IS to simply continue? I’m no military strategist, so take what I’m about to say with a grain of salt, but the pacifist answer is in two forms of sabotage, direct and indirect."
Read here from the perspective of the pacifist those actions as deemed appropriate in response to a regime despotic and cruel.