MIddle Eastern Crowds demonstrate

The photo being ignored in the US Press:

(Pope Benedict XVI waves to the faithful from his Pope-mobile upon his arrival to conduct an open-air mass service at Beirut City Center Waterfront September 16, 2012. REUTERS/ Stefano Rellandini)

 (The faithful gather at Bkerke, the hilltop centre of the Maronite Church, before the Pope Benedict XVI attends a youth rally. Central Beirut and the Mediterranean Sea are seen in the background. September 15, 2012. REUTERS/ Stefano Rellandini)

more HERE.

risking his life to show solidarity with the Middle Eastern Christians under attack,and calling for peace while others call for war.

----------------------------------

and despite all the nonsense being written on the embassy attacks, Taheri in the NYPost points out it is the terrorists trying to overthrow the newly elected governments (the film was just an excuse, and if it hadn't been the film, it would have been something else).

Mohammad Mursi, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood until his election as president of Egypt, has described the Arab Spring as “a movement for democracy and dignity,” not Islamic sharia. Tunisia’s principal Islamist leader, Rachid al-Ghannouchi, has visited the United States to demonstrate “admiration and respect” for America.
The Cairo and Benghazi raids reflect not just Islamo-fascist groups’ abiding hatred (mixed with resentful awe) for America, but also their growing fear that part of the Islamist movement may be succumbing to seduction by the United States.
The intensification of sectarian schism within Islam may encourage anti-American attacks as a diversionary tactic. Unable to agree on what Islam is, rival Islamist groups may focus on what Islam is not — and the United States, with its emphasis on individual freedoms and freedom of faith and speech, is a potent symbol of what they despise.

Reuters Africa has this article, from the Libyan team that helped Americans under attack. A lot more folks were involved in the fight on the side of the US than you would think from the initial press reports.

The article brings up several things not noted in the political spinning in the US press: That the Libyans were risking their lives to rescue Americans, that American soldiers were nearby and assisted in the rescue by local Libyan Army Special Ops, that there were a lot more folks to rescue than they had estimated, and that the second phase of the rescue was targeted by mortars.

Why is that last part important? Because it confirms a preplanned attack, not a "spontaneous" action. That shows another major lapse in security. Why? As Blackfive agrees: it takes some planning and skill to hit something with mortar attack.


StrategyPage agrees, with more details, including this observation:

September 15, 2012: Al Qaeda took credit for the September 11 attack in Benghazi and called for more American diplomats to be attacked wherever possible.

No Islamic radical group in Libya has taken credit for the recent attack, apparently because it is obvious that most Libyans are angry about killing the U.S. ambassador (italics mine) and the Americans are determined to find and punish the killers. The Islamic terrorists in general are very afraid of UAV attacks, which have killed hundreds of key terrorist leaders and technicians (bomb builders, publicists, intel specialists).

So the radicals want to be seen as representative of the peoples in the Middle East, but they are not, even though the US press sees all Muslims as a monolith...
-------------------------------
Related item: While Obama is busy in LasVegas rallies, China is trying to take over the West Philippine Sea.

China has openly threatened economic retaliation against nations that protest the great South China Sea land grab and is, by implication and its actions, threatening the use of military force as well.