I mean, I'm no fan of one party authoritarian states sustained by the military and corrupt businessmen, but if Mubarak is opposing people who torch buildings and storm hotels while guests huddle in hiding wondering where the police are it's hard for me to question his response. This isn't the people peaceably assembling to petition for a redress of grievances, it's a national riot. Virtually any Western democracy faced with indiscrimate violence, possibly even killing, though it's hard to be sure from the little chaotic info I've seen, would declare martial law, and with that in mind Mubaraks response so far doesn't seem too unreasonable. I have no illusions about his nobility, but let's keep things in perspective and recall that neither the Reign of Terror nor the Bolshevik Revolution significantly improved things for the oppressed; it just meant they were oppressed at least as much and more violently. The relevance I see to those terms, even in an advanced modern nation like Egypt, is precisely the sort of thing I have in mind when I suggest the Mid-East isn't capable of full participation in 21st Century international relations.

So, who wants to clue me in on what I'm missing here...?