Suppose there are two groups of people, out of those two groups there is only one group that you speak(talk)with. The group that you do not speak(talk)with, you do not speak to them because of their ideology or some other reason. Now let us say that a fight erupts between these two groups, as with any two(or more)groups that take to fighting one is the aggressor and the other is or has been attacked. Now, let us suppose that the one not spoken with is the aggressor and the one that is spoken with is responding to the attack. In other words one is acting and the other is reacting, or put this way, one wants to fight and the other is forced to fight. Now , you come to a point where you want to say something, problem is that you only talk with the one who is under attack. So what do you say? You tell the one under attack that you want to see a significant de-escalation today. You have got to be kidding me, How can the one reacting provide you with a reduction in violence?

Telling the one being attacked that you want to see a significant de-escalation today make as much sense to me as standing behind the podium giving a speech to an auditorium full of only women and saying this. I want to see a reduction in the number of rapes. Moron, you are addressing the wrong audience.

And that makes as much sense as this. Standing behind the same podium in the same auditorium but this time the audience is law abiding gun owning citizens. What is it you say to them? You say you want to end “gun violence”, but to end gun violence you must curb or eliminate the right for them to own, possess or carry firearms. Again moron, you are addressing the wrong audience.

You may find at times in life the person you least want to speak(talk)with is in fact the person you should be speaking too.

If you really want a de-escalation of the violence going on in the Middle-East then address the aggressor in clear terms. You can make yourself clear, can’t you?