H20,
those 'madman' and shia muslims where muslims too, you can't always take side with the ones you(or islam history) likes the most (in this case Saladin). Shia's are muslims too.
and why did the christian fight alongside them? ever heard of the saying
"isn't my enemy's enemy, my friend?" politics! war strategem.
next thing, is that i NEVER said anything along the way that glorified the crusades... you are again trying to shove that into my shoes, i have always said alltough i never liked the crusades that the instigation of these wars came due to muslim aggression, not due to bored christians.
wheter that be due to pressing conquering danger of the muslims, or by muslims desintigrating holy places in jerusalem... they were muslims... mad or shia, they were muslims.
even when the christians conquered jerusalem they gained back religious freedom as it was before... till some king took jerusalem over and started persecuting again (history repeated) and then Saladin had the right to conquer back. Just like -by war strategem- (not by christianity) the pope had the right to take it back from the muslims when they refused us the most holy place on earth. If you deny the pope that, then you must deny Saladin reconquering Jerusalem as well.
In the end and even you agree on it, muslims had a big part in this stain in history, but you try to defend it by saying the one(s) involved who provoced it weren't muslim.
And don't pretend as if you are shocked by the atrocities in the crusades H20... you read the quran! and think of it as holy, you embrace war, you aren't shocked by it anymore. If you are, may i quote historical events while the caliphs brutally slaughtered they way to the fartesth border possible?