I edited my last post to further demonstrate the similarities and why it is a danger...You may want to reexamine that...
May be you meant a "radical" modern Islamic state, and I would even dare add a 'belligerent' one. However, an Islamic state did exist in the past in many forms and corners of the world, they were called "Caliphates". So Qotb was not the 'visionary' of the Islamic state, instead he was a guy who preached violent Islamic militancy and 'puritanism' to rid the Muslim world from what he was convinced is rampant corruption and 'unIslamic' influences (mostly, Western domination/colonialism at the time). He's considered the grandfather of modern Islamic militancy, and indeed the Brotherhood was at one time (in Egypt, at least) a militant organization with widespread influence. Ironically enough, the modern Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is merely interested in democratic reforms and political participation, but have 'laid down' their arms...at least for now, but that might change if the Mubarak regime keeps insisting on suppressing political opposition.
That is what I meant...and I appreciate the information that you added. (BTW, it amazes me you know this stuff pretty well off the top of your head, when I have to do painful research )
If you believe the branches don't matter though you are giving up the ability to leverage one side against the other as you don't consider the differences and have already shown you really have no interest in working with them.
All the Middle east needs is more Starbucks, McDonalds, KFC and Burger Kings, and the Westernization will continue. DD
