If someone interprets your message in such a way where it is not what you meant, but you specified your message it is not your fault, but if you didn't then it is your fault. The reason why I criticized your ORIGINAL POSTis because it looked as if you were supporting the Crusaders, you didn't specify otherwise. And in the SECOND POST, you BLAME ME because YOUR MESSAGE WAS LACKING!!! So I responded to that if you had just said "Hey I don't support the Crusaders, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding." like I do when people misunderstand me. (If there was no indication of my actual message.)
When it comes to Judea I must admit I'm no expert. So I will concede that point.
But I KNOW FOR A FACT, that when the Crusaders conquered Constantinople it was under Christian rule. - I mean to know this just look at the person in charge of Constantinople at the time - Enrico Dandolo - totally a Muslim right? (Also this is supported by the 5 historians that run Crash Course history which is used in schools across the country.) And no, supporting facts is not redundant, agreeing on facts can make us come to a conclusion faster. And although people have said the same things you're saying, these people have conceded, because they are not replying.
P.S History is history, (as you said) so why are you attacking common historical facts.? Also, I am not for PC, I am for honesty, you calling me PC to de-credit my argument is the same thing as me calling you an Islamaphobe, it's wrong and hypocritical. If I am an SJW, why are you getting triggered? I don't hate you, we are just having a debate, we just disagree, don't get attached, I respect you, you are expected to reciprocate, and we move on.