The crusades were justified responses to Muslim Aggresion

Apologies for the previous forfeit, my internet went off for a day and this led to my forfeit in two other debates as well.I hope it is okay with my opponent if I focus on the First Crusade.Contention: Definition of JihadIn regards to the terms, I have no contentions except for the definition of Jihad. Jihad doesn't necessarily mean "Holy War".The Arabic word for "holy war": Harbu muqadsat, is found nowhere in the Quran or hadith. The meaning of Jihad is simply "to Struggle". It is sometimes interpreted that going out to war is a form of Jihad but not at all the primary purpose of Jihad. In fact, Jihad does not even necessarily have to be Islamically related. For example: A school student cramming his studies the night before a test is doing a Jihad, since he is under going a struggle.To be more specific, Islamic Jihad is known as "Jihad 'ul fisabililah" or "Struggle in the way of God". Once more, that definition is also general. Hence, Jihad does not mean holy war. But it can be used in that context. Aside from the definition for Jihad, I agree with all the other terms.Argument 1:The First Crusade was originally motivated by geo-politicsIn the mid 11th century, the Byzantine Empire was facing several incursions by the Seljuk Turks. The Turks quickly moved in the Anatolia (Modern Day Turkey) region. Such can be seen in the map below below: One can see the Seljuk"s were alarmingly close to the Byzantine Capital of Constantinople, in fact the Turks had carried out several failed sieges of Constantinople prior to the First Crusade. This is what prompted the Emperor Alexios I Komnenos to seek aid from Catholic Europe.This was when the first Crusade was originally initiated; as a call to assistance from Western Europe to aid the Byzantines. The first indicator that the Crusades were not motivated by religion but rather geopolitics because if the focus was more on religion then the pope wouldn"t need an excuse to start a crusade as he would have simply called out for one instead of waiting.By the 1090"s Western Europe had mostly ended the "Dark Ages" as stable localized Kingdoms were established following the period of instability after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Preceding this the Catholic church held indirect however tremendous influence over Europe, the 1090"s came a few decades after the Norman Conquest when England had finally stabilized.Since the original plea of Komnenos was imply to organize a small force to reconquer Anatolia, this does not justify the religious response from the Pope that was given. The atrocities done by Peter the Hermit in Christian territory (I'll get to that) further illustrates this.Argument 2: Crusader Atrocities were far worse.Six months prior to the First Crusade, French Preist Peter the Hermit lead an army of 40,000 or so peasants from France to Constantinople. Upon reaching the city of Belgrade he found that a previous peasant army Walter San Avoir had already ransacked the city. Killing Christian civilians as a result.Secondly in from May to July of 1096, the Bishops of Mainz, Worms and Cologne were forced to shelter the Jews into their Churches as Anti-Semitic mobs of Crusading knights stromed the city. Killing the Jews that took sanctuary in the Church, despite that being a major sin in Christianity.A thing to note about these atrocities are the fact that many were aimed at Christian civilians, it makes little sense that the Crusaders pillage and kill members of their own religion while on a Crusade. Especially since this contridicts the Christian commandment of "Thou shall not kill"The most notorious atrocity of the First Crusade was the ransacking of Jerusalem in 1099. In the Gesta Francorum ( a Latin book that chronicled the Crusades in the perspective of the Franks) "...[our men] were killing and slaying even to the Temple of Solomon, where the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles..." A second chronicler of the first Crusade, Fulcher of Chartres documented how the Crusaders took the Temple Mount during the siege. He says and I quote "In this temple 10,000 were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared"Now contrast this with Saladin's conquest of Jerusalem. When Saladin took down the city of Jerusalem in 1187 after a 1 and a half week long siege. He made a ransom to the citizens of Jerusalem. After a long negotiation with Balin of Ibelin it was agreed that a ransom would be held to free seven thousand of the poor citizens of Jerusalem who couldn't afford to pay the ransom on the collective ransom of 30,000 Beznats. Two women or ten children would be permitted to take the place of one man for the same price. Saladin's brother then released another 1,000 people unable to pay and 2,000 more people unable to pay were then released. Saladin then freed all of the elderly unable to pay. While many who didn't pay were sold to slavery. Now you have to note that Saladin did not kill a single civilian when he took over Jerusalem. In conclusion, the atrocities done by the Crusaders (especially in the First Crusade) heavily outweigh the atrocities done by Muslims. That being because the Muslim armies killed far less civilians, and far less members of their own faith. Contrast that with the Crusaders whom killed countless Jews, Byzantine and even Christian civillians in the span it took to take Jerusalem. When Jersusalem was taken by Saladin the citzezens were spared, and allowed to practice their religon while under Muslim control. Whilst during Christian occupation, citezens were pruged upon conquest and other religions were heavliy suppressed..Sources:1. 2.3. http://historymedren.about.com...4. Gesta Francorum5. http://iranpoliticsclub.net...6. http://dcc.newberry.org...7. https://en.wikipedia.org...