I consider denial of the threat of jihadism and indifference to Islamic theocracy to currently be much more malignant than Wardogg's own knee-jerk reactionism and uninteresting brand of doltish bigotry.
I'm not sure 17 denied the threat posed by jihadism (though in itself it is minimal - more on this later). I think he asserted the right of Iraqi insurgents to rebel against a foreign occupier, which is something very different. This is an especially pertinent distinction given that at the height of the insurgency, most of the militants were not Islamic jihadists, as any well-informed U.S. commander wil tell you. Most of them were just Sunni rebels who felt excluded and oppressed by the American administration. It was their decision to switch sides and work with the Americans (to prevent what they considered to be the dangerous and increasing influence of Al Qaeda-stlye extremists) which turned the tide in Iraq. Most of the 'Sons of Iraq' are former-insurgents, so to label all insurgents as Islamic Jihadists is a gross over-simplification by any measure.
I don't necessarily agree with 17 on all (or any) of these points, but my views are probably closer to his than to Wardogg's. Specifically, I would have a fairly low-opinion of organisations like Hezbollah, which could be regarded as having some legitimacy when founded, but is now (in my opinion) a destablising influence in Lebannon which acts in a manner contrary to its original aims. Nevertheless, it is a statement of fact that Hezbollah has provided for the people of southern Lebannon in a way that the government has failed to do, and anyone who dismisses this out of hand has no real understanding of middle-east politics. For example, Palestinian culture is traditionally one of the most secular in the Arab world (along with Iraq's), yet Hamas has huge support among parts of the population. Why? Because they have filled a political and social vaccum left by the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority. I consider Hamas to be a morally reprehensible organisation due to its deliberate targeting of civilians, but there can be no doubt it has supported Gazans far better than anyone else.
Militant Islam is a problem, but it's a far more complex problem than most people think. In a region dominated by neo-colonialism and inequality, it promises the dejected and neglected self-determination and a more just society. The means are extremely questionable, but the goals are not, and the sooner westerners realise this, the better. Just today, the United States confirmed a $60 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, a regime as corrupt, brutal and oppressive as any of the other Middle Eastern states America has taken issue with. Yet instead of invasion or political and economic isolation, they are getting advanced weapons. As long as the U.S. continues to support such regimes, militant Islam will appeal to the disenfranchised masses of the Middle East. Viewing it as political realism is at least consistent, but bashing revolutionary Islam whilst simultaneously giving people good reason to support it is totally hypocritical. Politicians have to be hypocrites, but you don't.
The cause and solution to the problem of militant Islam lies in the socio-economic system of the developed world. Militant Islam should not pose a threat to the western world, but our support of autocratic and corrupt regimes does. The former flourishes because of the latter, and if it wasn't militant Islam, it would be something else (e.g. the Arab nationalism of the 50s, 60s and 70s).