I don't see what it is about my comment that is unreasonable or impossible.
Ok, let's analyze the comment:
"I've said before that the fact that Iran and Saudi Arabia aren't having these mass riots is proof that the Islamists are going to take over in Egypt."
The fact that 2 nations on the region that profess a certain official religion are not having the same riots as a country who doesn't profess that religion means that they will take over. Never mind the economic and social situations of each country. Never mind their history.
No, let's just go with that absurd correlation.
There was a series of protests in Argentina that lead to the resignation of the president in 2001. There weren't similar protests in Paraguay or Bolivia. Both countries have more brown people than Argentina! Surely, browns are taking over Argentina!! The HORROR!
Not only your statement was stupid, but it also goes along with the whole "islam = bad"; "whatever WE are = good".
The situation in the middle east is very fluid. If we see this sort of civil disorder in Saudi Arabia or Iran then it is more likely that Egypt is making some progress towards a secular democracy, but the middle east doesn't have a strong history of that. People make the case that a number of the rioters in Egypt are middle class and educated, but the middle class is small there compared to the impoverished class.
Your point is? That educated people would not believe in islam but poor people would, so they would approve a islamist dictatorship? What about non islamic dictatorships? What about islamic democracies? Or that's impossible? Only Christian democracies are true democracies?
EDIT: Ideally, for me, goverment should separate as much as possible from religion and tolerate everything. But that's not what really happens in most so called democracies.