So initiating violence is legitimate protest provided you choose the right target? I strongly disagree. You've compared this to the American Revolution; when John Adams defended the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre his fellow colonists had his strong sympathy, yet he passionately argued for the soldiers acquittal in part because nearly every witness agreed THOSE protesters hurled missiles at the soldiers long before anyone was shot. Thus he argued they had the right to defend themselves with force and that even a documented history of animosity between specific soldiers and specific slain protesters made it manslaughter at the most, not murder. You can't initiate violence then cry foul when it's resisted with superior violence.

It's rather more than inconvenient to those likely to be brutally repressed, imprisoned, tortured and/or executed for being:

1) Women who won't wear a burka,
2) Egyptians more interested than Egypt than a pan-Islamic theocracy,
3) Non-Muslims,
4) Heterodox Muslims and
5) Westerners in Egypt

For them a Muslim Brotherhood government even you concede is probable means far more of what supposedly justifies Mubaraks violent overthrow.

Time will likely tell. Yes, Egyptians know Irans history; that's part of why they so long endured Mubarak: Many feel the alternative to be at least as bad and probably worse. Until yesterday I'd seen no evidence they're wrong; now I've seen a single piece, but there's still more on the other side.

From what I'VE there's little reason to believe Egypt is transitioning to democracy, incrementally or otherwise. Before you condemn my opposition to something why don't we verify its actual existence, eh? Once again, I'm not saying I hope Mubaraks regime survives this, but that IF a successor regime would be far more authoritarian, brutal and insensitive to free expression and democracy, IF it would simply make sectarian violence in the streets with government sanction the norm, I hope Mubaraks regime averts that through survival, because the undeniable blood on his hands is less than his successors would have. I'd love a truly free and democratic Egpyt, consider it infinitely preferable to Mubarak, but am not sure that's on the table; there's more evidence it's a choice between the extent and leaders of continued brutal violence and repression. IF that assessment is wrong I'll be the first to cheer true democracy, but democracy is more than simply removing one tyrant in a country boiling with violent xenophobia. Even if I had a vote I wouldn't cast it for any of the contestants here because I'm not convinced any merit it.

Sure I do, and so does Obama, hence he waffles and says little except that he supports the peoples right to protest, won't intervene and condemns the violence from both sides. Yet Obamas caution is no accident, and others would do well to emulate it. If this were simply democracy vs. despotism he'd long ago have been explicit and emphatic on the protesters behalf, and made clear to Mubarak that he should leave immediately because he'll no longer get US military hardware on which his regime depends. Instead, Obama and his State Dept. seem well aware that removing Mubarak won't automatically improve Egypt any more than removing the Shah or Saddam did Iran or Iraq. In case you missed it, I never supported attempts to impose democracy on Iraq, so it should hardly surprise you I wouldn't do it in Egypt. It's their country to run as they please, just one of the points on which I disagree with the leaders of the government likely to be running Egypt soon.

Yet, once again, as I can't stress enough, I do NOT endorse Mubarak, and wouldn't even if that endorsement carried weight. I endorse democracy over despotism where attainable, but elsewhere I support reduced oppression, violence and state sanctioned murder over expanded oppression, violence and state sanctioned murder. I suspect Egypt is being offered the latter choice, but can't be certain so no one gets even my largely meaningless vote.