Hi, thank you a lot for your reply, it's actually really nice to see people like you who can hold a discussion to such a high level, especially when it comes down to these themes which usually generate some of the most (if not THE MOST) classless debates on the Internet.
I tried to be as impartial as possible in my brief characterization. I tried to be as neutral as possible and trying to open the heads of those who are only aware of one side of the story, and dismiss the urge for a Crusade in its historical circumstances, only accounting the victims and forgetting the many ideological, geopolitical and religious reasons that were behind it and surely should be studied and understood (different from accepting them as valid in our time, of course).
However, while trying to discredit those who, in a Manichaean way put Christians versus Muslims, I ended up using the very same blocs in my analysis, without realising that I was omitting by a large part the bases of the population, the majority of those religious groups, while referring only to the warlords and clergymen (the elites, to whom historians usually tend their attention and critic to).
It wasn’t actually correct; and like you just said, the vast majority of the Muslims killed were innocent, alienated from everything that was behind. Period. I was mistaken in just ignoring those human expenses, but still think that the approach led by many on the subject of the Crusades, judging it exclusively it by modern standards is wrong. So, while this was actually a lot of morally-bad Christians perpetrators killing innocent muslims, I'm not very fond of putting this in big collectives, especially when if it fits one's political interests thinking that the roles of bad-guy and good-guy haven't changed.
Also, while what you’ve written is actually very well put (and it surely hit me by surprise, since I was expecting an authoritarian and patronising response with zero factual arguments, like I said in the beginning of the text), had a lot in-depth, I’d just like to clarify that the "the streets ran with blood up to their ankles" thing has already been disproven by studies and calculations, and was most likely a hyperbole on part of the (anonymous) author (these words cited are from the chronicle “Gesta Francorum”, by the way”).