You're getting into dangerously ignorant territory with those words, and you haven't even done your research. Stop. That has no place here.
The protest, by some accounts, was for the most part not violent. The violence that did happen was a planned and targeted action perpetrated by a highly trained militia exploiting the cover of the protests.
Reinforcements were delayed intentionally, and the second attack clearly accounted for the contingency of a saferoom escape by smoking them out. Indeed, several hours before the attack occurred, it's possible that the area was being scoped out, and pictures taken.
Furthermore, the group that is apparently responsible has been identified, and is being pursued.
If you want to know more, the middle-eastern thread at SomethingAwful is tracking developments.
You're talking about 1 small part, of a much larger picture. The protests are still going on strong and spreading, and while they might have been started by 1 specific covert agenda, they are now being driven by anti-American and anti-Western sentiment, which appears to be deep seated.
While there is plenty of anti-American sentiment in the Middle East, and it relates to protests, I'm not sure that has so much to do with the destruction of the embassy and the murder of the Libyans and Americans there.
I don't think that the President being seen to support deliberate antagonism of deep religious prejudices (by parties interested in more and worse war) will help.
You don't see the President publicly supporting strident anti-semitism or holocaust denialism or racism or eugenics, either - though those are taboos for western society more than for predominantly Muslim societies; consider how much Ahmedinejad's casual holocaust denial has done to maintain anger about Iran in the West.
My understanding of how mobs work might be wrong, but I think it cannot be that that mob used it as an excuse. It could be the case that there was a political/religious leader who used the video as an excuse as masses are not eager and willing to kill anyone.
> ...masses are not eager and willing to kill anyone.
Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob
on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get
out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? ...Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
― Herman Goering
Many think that you can make the masses eager to kill.
Additionally, the effects of the anonymity that mobs naturally provide even without the influence of leadership should not be ignored.
I love anonymity, I really do. I think the ability to have it is vital in any free society. Even so, I cannot deny that it has its downsides, and lowering social inhibitions is one of the more serious ones.
But what do the nazis and the [x] have in common that we dont here? isn't the answer they had dictatorial/failed states? You can counter-example us southern lychings but that seems to be the exception that proves the rule. the demos in western democracies is not the mob of the [x] street.
[edit: subject is mob violence leading to murder, etc]