The actual, effective fighters of the first crusade were Franks. They had no stake in Jerusalem. You're appealing to some abstract devotion to religious purity and devotion on the part of people who were so depraved that when they got hungry, they killed, cooked and ate their prisoners. These were people who had plundered, raped and murdered their way across the western portion of the Roman Empire.
Sounds like they were the perfect people to sic on Islam.
(Try to get it through your thick skull that there was no "Byzantine Empire--they didn't call it that, the Empire did not call itself that--it only got that name from monkish, gnomish historians centuries later. How can anyone take you historical abortions seriously when you can't even take on-board basic historical fact?)
In my previous post, I demonstrated my acceptance of that fact, and justified my use of the term Byzantine Empire.
Is there a need for me to cut and paste parts of my previous post?
The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was ordered destroyed by the Fatimid Caliph who then controlled Palestine, in 1009. The First Crusade did not begin until 1095, eighty-six years later. The church had already been rebuilt with the consent of the Fatimid Caliph who had succeeded the Caliph who had order its destruction. The reconstruction of the church was completed in 1048, forty-seven years before that crusade began. The fate of a church which had already been re-built was a casus belli, an excuse for war.
Rebuilding the church doesn't change that its destruction pissed everyone off. I'm still pissed off about it today.
The crusaders were Franks. The Franks had never lived in Palestine, they had never own one square foot of Palestine--it was nothing more than am excise to invade and attempt to set up a kingdom in Jerusalem.
Were I in charge of the Crusades, I would certainly have done things differently.
I would have put a premium on protecting and strengthening the Byzantine Empire. And if I'd captured Israel at all, I would have restored the land to Jewish sovereignty.
But that does not change the reality that Muslims were invading and killing everyone back then, just as they are doing today, and the Crusades were a strike against Islamic aggression.
The crusade, no matter what holy joe bullshit you come up with, was a naked plundering expedition and a land grab.
Grabbing back land that Muslims had stolen.
they did nothing to return the former territory to the Roman Empire, or to defend it from the Turks.
The Crusaders chose to rule the reclaimed land themselves.
There is a serious problem within Christianity when their adherents bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors who perform abortions, and their body guards and the employees of such clinics.
I agree. And there was also the stuff in Northern Ireland in recent decades. But current problems with Xianity are not nearly as bad as the pervasive threat posed by Islam.
There is a serious problem within Christianity when atrocities such as the slaughter at Srebenica was allowed to take place without interference, and the criminals who committed it are allowed to go unpunished.
I disagree. I do not believe that massacre was due to religion. I attribute it to nationalism.
There is a serious problem within Judaism when Zionists routinely murder innocent men, women and children, and go unpunished.
No such problem. No such murders.
while you so eagerly blame the actions of a tiny minority of Muslims on all of Islam
The problems within Islam are not limited to a tiny minority.
I am not sure that the problems are limited to even a large minority. It is true that not every Muslim is rushing to join Islamic State. But how many Muslims think it is OK to murder someone if they switch to a different faith? Quite a few I'd bet. Maybe even a majority. Maybe even a large majority. How many Muslims think that it is OK to murder people who burn the Koran? All of them?