Taking the temperature of the Counter-Jihad, part 5

In part 4, I wrote:

Coming up in part 5:  If the differences among Counter-Jihad members are unavoidable, would a Compromise among them be possible?  What would such a Compromise look like? 

I wrote that in a context of having adverted to "fault lines" of disagreement within the Counter-Jihad.  One particular fault line that has come to frustrate (if not exasperate) me more and more has been the one distinguishing the "Softies" from those who counsel a more robust diagnosis of the problem (viz., for starters, it's not just "Islam but not Muslims" -- it's both Islam and Muslims).  This reflects perhaps a more serious rift than do most fault lines.  The latest Mohammedan atrocity in France only underscores the exigency (and the exasperation) all the more, one would think.

Can a Compromise be developed between these two camps? 

I don't know; they haven't shown any willingness as yet to engage in a reasonable and mature conversation about it.  If only some of the supposedly more reasonable Counter-Jihad folks (such as Jihad Watch regulars Mirren, Wellington, wildjew, dumbledoresarmy, and others) would step in and chide their fellow Softies (such as Jihad Watch regulars Angemon, Phillip Jihadski, mortimer, Jay Boo, and Salah), using their peer pressure to motivate them to stop being such asses, we could begin to get serious about a most deadly-serious problem.