The crusades were justified responses to Muslim Aggresion

I'll write my rebuttals here, and my conclusions:R1: " In fact, The Muslims were taking over vast swathes of Christian land long before Pope Urban called for the first crusade. The holy land of Jerusalem and Israel, where Jesus preached, was taken over by Muslim armies 400 years before the Christians ever decided to fight back. By the time the Catholic church raised the call to arms, Muslim hordes had overran Egypt (birthplace of Christian monasticism) Israel (Area where Jesus preached) All of Northern Africa, and had even established a foothold in Europe." Note however that these conquests were almost completely irrelevant to the Crusade. Peter the Hermit and Pope Urban's aim in the Crusade was to reconquer the Holy Land. No intention or emphasis was made to take Egypt until after the Third Crusade, no intention was made to take the Iberian peninsula until centuries after the First Crusade during the Reconquista.If the Church's original intentions were to reconquer Muslim territories, then attacks on Eygpt and the Reconquista would have happened much sooner. Also, even you mentioned that the Muslim cnoquests of these territores were occupied for a good four centures after the first Crusade. The Crusade was not a reponse to Muslim conquests of Spain or Eygpt, otherwise they would have called it a Reconquista. Secondly, even when under Muslim rule, the Christian inhabitants were allowed to practise their religion just as they were under Christian rule. The Jews were better off under Muslim Rule since they never had to worry about hiding their religon. As mentioned previously, prior to the People's Crusade a mass purging of the Jews occured in what is now modern day France or Germany.Contrast that to Muslim rule, in which the Jews were perfectly allowed to practise their religion without fear of reprecutions like the ones in the hands of the Crusader. As writen by Jewish Historian, Zion Zohar: "Thus, when Muslims crossed the straits of Gibraltar from North Africa in 711 CE and invaded the Iberian Peninsula, Jews welcomed them as liberators from Christian Persecution." —Sephardic and Mizrahi Jewry,New York 2005, pg,8-9 Christian Pilgrims as well were allowed to migrate to the Holy Land with little worry of banditry or persecution, this only changed when the Seljuks came along.R2:" found a very helpful map illustrating all the battles of the crusades vs all the battles of Muslim Jihad.https://www.google.com.......As you can see, Muslim armies did far more pillaging and conquering than their Christian counterparts."Pro has offered very little evedience to suggest that the Muslim armies had done much or any pillaging over the course of the Crusades. The Burden of Proof is on him to prove that the Muslims had commited said atrocities ( I have already given my proof of Crusader atrocities in the previous round)R3:" The Muslims, however, clearly wanted to take over the entire Christian world and convert all to Islam. The simple fact is that Europe was backed into a corner by a rampant and savage invader and they were forced into defending themselves."Once more, just as in my previous rebut, the Burden of Proof is on Pro to prove that the Muslims had intentions of taking over Europe.R4: "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." As you can see, my opponent has unfortunately put the nails in the coffin for his arguments by admitting that the Muslims were the first to attack"In that argument, I was exclusively talking about the Seljuk Turks and the Byzantines exclusivly. Not once did I say that the Seljuk incursions justfied a Crusade, since the conflict was only between the Seljuks and the Byzantines. The intention of the Crusaders was to take Jerusalem, not to assist the Byzantines. My opponent makes the mistake of interpreting Muslim territories as a monolithic entity.In order for a Crusade to have been justified, that would have required incursions from the group that controlled Jerusalem at the time. Note, that the country that controlled Jerusalem prior to the Crusade was the Fatimid Caliphate, not the Seljuks. The conflict between the Seljuks and the Byzantines was almost completely restricited to the Anatolian peninsula. The Fatimids had nothing to do with this, neither did the Abbasid or Idrisids have anything to do with the Seljuk incursions. Yet all of these were major powers of the Muslim world.To get a grasp at how irrelevant the Fatimids were to Seljuk incursions imagine this situation. Imagine that when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait during the Gulf War, America uses that to justifiy and attack on Iran.The Fatimids were not responsible for Seljuk incursions (just as Iran was not responisble for the Gulf War in my previously mentioned scenario) so ideally they should not have been involved. Just because they were all muslims, does not mean that they are all collectively responsible.R5:"What my opponent doesn't know about these killings is that they were not ordered by the Christian generals and it was in fact a very small group of rouge soldiers who instigated the killings. These men were defectors from the military who wanted to steal the gold and possessions of the villagers rather than a large army acting on orders from a high command. No matter which way you choose to spin this information, the truth is that you cannot place the burden of this crime on the Crusaders as the men who perpetrated it separated themselves from the crusaders and their cause"Just as a group of defectors cannot be held responsible for the actions of the Crusaders in general, the attacks of Seljuk Turks did not justify the attacks towards the Fatimids during the Crusades in general. However, my opponent had used the opposite type of logic in the previous argument. Hence that would technically equate to a contradiction. If a minority cannot be held responsible for the actions of the majority, that therefore means that the acts of the Seljuks could not justify the attacks on the Muslim world.Sources:1. Zion Zohar, Sephardic and Mizrahi Jewry: From the Golden Age of Spain to Modern Times pg 8-92. http://historymedren.about.com...3. https://en.wikipedia.org...(1099)4. http://www.debate.org...Thanks to Pro for a very intresting debate. Huge apologies for my forfeit during the second round.