What makes Syrians any different from other Muslims?

Lawrence Auster touts a Barry Rubin piece that indeed hits most of the right notes -- about Egypt; among which is the grievous error of supporting the Egyptian Muslims in their overthrow of their previous regime.

Then, after delineating paragraph after paragraph the cogency of his argument, Rubin suddenly does an about-face about Syria:

The survival of an anti-American Syrian government that has murdered hundreds of its citizens and will be arresting and torturing thousands, in part due to the Obama Administration's failure to try to overthrow it.

So it's not okay to help Muslims overthrow the Egyptian or the Libyan or the Tunisian or the Yemeni governments, because the revolting Muslims will turn out to be likely worse than the tin-pot tyrannies we will have helped them overthrow; but somehow it is wise to help Syrian Muslims overthrow their tin-pot tyranny? On what possible basis does Rubin make such a distinction?

It reminds me of the "Persian Flu" that was going around last year, when even many in the anti-Islam movement were investing their hope in all those Iranian Muslims who were demonstrating against their government, even though there was a mountain of evidence (meticulously collected by Diana West at the time) indicating that freedom-loving Iranian Muslims were only opposing a particular theocracy, and if successful would simply replace that theocracy with another equally as dangerous to us, if not more.

In fact, as the analysts at Jihadica have noted, certain Muslim extremists support the rebellions against Syria (and elsewhere) as an opportunity for an aggrandizement of Islamic power in the region.

And by the way, among those "thousands" who concern Rubin because they will be tortured by the Syrian government are likely to be many Muslim extremists who want to kill us on their way to a global jihad as much as they want to overthrow their own government as part of the first step. Indeed, one can reasonably assume that among those tortured by all Muslim tyrannies over the decades (Tunisia, Morocco, Libya, Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc.) have been innumerable Muslim extremists who, if released from their torture dungeons, would have gone on to assiduously plan terror attacks at home and/or abroad.

At any rate, the reasonable rule of thumb for the AIM to adopt is simple:

Muslims are always wrong and always dangerous, no matter which side of a conflict they seem to be on.

How many of us will have to be mass-murdered in the coming decades before we wake up to the pragmatic truth of that rule of thumb?

Of course, some Muslims may be more useful to us than others in certain contexts, as long as we are intelligently wily in pursuing a strategy of Realislamik which keeps the above rule of thumb ever in the forefront of our minds; otherwise, we will continue to make geopolitical blunders that endanger us. Our geopolitical casuistry with regard to Muslims anywhere in the world should be ruthlessly cynical and self-serving.