Salafiyyah and Ghuloo' post no. 30

People seem to be conflating between...
1) Attacking a Muslim ruler with no purpose or wisdom and supporting rebellion against him without the Islamic conditions being met
and...
2) Attacking a Muslim ruler in order to counter and balance the narrative provided by the sycophants who portray him as a good representative of Islam and call for rebellion when the conditions set by the scholars have been met
Number 1 is to be condemned, not no. 2, however the Madkhalis also don't like no.2. They would falsely have you believe that their form of overpraising and rationalizing the crimes of rulers by appealing to pragmatism has a basis in the manhaj of the Salaf, which is far from the truth.
They would also falsely have you believe that there are no legitimate scholarly differences surrounding the subject of rebellion, criticism of the ruler in public, etc and that anyone who disagrees with them is a kharijite.
People who don't research and read properly easily fall into believing their ignorance.
I personally don't allow for any excuses for these people. I think Madkhalis are foolish people, just as the people who fall for their idiocy are foolish (I don't mind if you are offended, in fact I desire to offend you and insult you).
To claim that tyrants and people who ally with the kuffar against Muslims are good rulers and what not is the brink of immorality. Shame on you. Shame on you all.
It's one thing to obey the tyrant and warn against anarchy out of fear of a greater fitnah and it's another thing all together to make excuses for the crimes of the tyrants and traitors by appealing to pragmatic rationalizations and fooling others into thinking they are good Muslim rulers. The latter has no basis in the way of the Salaf.