I'm sure you'll have different opinion regarding the Arab and later Ottoman (Turkish) expansion of their dominion who happened to be muslims.

if you got 10 minutes, watch this video.
crash course history lesson.

TL:DR  The crusades was more about politics than religious reasons.

Many people no understand.

Solomon came first?
Or Sulaiman came first?

Musa or Abraham?

So when you cannot reply to my post you resort to attack me personally ?

Is that a general Christian attitude ?

I have a lot of Christian friend and none of them acts like you so I don't think you are a good example of how a Christian should act.

Christianity was also spread to America
but that itself was no crusade kan?

The crusades first stated because the western kings were fighting among themselves. Then the Eastern Roman emperor request from the western pope to help them defend Anatolia from the invading Seljuks. Gregory VII earlier calls were mostly unheeded because it was purely economic and just to help the Byzantines by the western kings and not until Urban II manage to convince them to go further than Anatolia manage to convince them that they'll get immunity, redemption whatsoever if they take up the cross.

That idea of retaking back the Christian land (which was already lost for 500 years) was just something that were made up at that time because Urban II actually intended to reunited back the Western and Eastern Churches.

If you're talking about retaking the Holy Land which was Christian before the Arab conquest please know that Christian Romans only ruled the are for 300 years while Muslim Arabs have ruled the area for 500 years and claiming it as muslim 'did it first' the Romans (though they were still worshipping Jupiter, Mars etc) took them from native Jews which then the Jews were not even allowed in the city.

It was after the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem in the 7th century when the Jews were invited back to Jerusalem.

Read about Vespasian conquest of Jerusalem during the Jewish rebellion in 70AD.

WHICH BOOK?

Our school text book is umno propaganda, trash by my standard

Start slowly from hangPC2 sources, which coincide the book i want to explain it to you

One of the primary sources about Vespasian came from Seutonius who's not a muslim.

Yeah and Christians have their primary source regarding the crusades from ?

Who's William of Tyre ? Another muslim ? 

Too much weed here

But to call it a crusade is just mind blowing

This

Portugal need something to legalize their action and the pope just agrees to that

Crusades started because of Islamic conquest of very generic. Contrary to you, I am more than willing to discuss the history of my religion base on simply that, history and all history were written by the victors as part of their propaganda.

If we're talking about Islamic conquest on Jerusalem as the reason for the crusade then it's definitely 500 years too late. If you're willing to go back 500 years to claim that Arabs/Muslims took Christian lands and so it's valid to retake them back, why not go back more further to 900 years where the Arabs/Muslims took back the lands from the Romans (Pagan first, the Christian) and gave them back to the native Jews ?

Rather than just rely on 'made for selected audience' history channel, why not read some opinions of non-muslim writers ?

Here's some reference.

Nicolle, David (1994). Yarmuk AD 636: The Muslim Conquest of Syria.
Gil, Moshe; Ethel Broido (1997). A History of Palestine. Cambridge University Press, pp. 634–1099.
"Umar (634–644)", The Islamic World to 1600 Multimedia History Tutorials by the Applied History Group, University of Calgary."
Yaqut al-Hamawi as cited in le Strange, Guy (1890). Palestine Under the Moslems: A Description of Syria and the Holy Land from A.D. 650 to 1500.
"Syria." Encyclopædia Britannica.

Yay! Now everyone can Rewrite history~

hari hari change history till sendiri slightly able to feel better