A couple recent mentions of "crusades" in the news

The above title naturally omits news stories about the chap "crusading" to save a pub, things of that sort. I'm referring to mentions such as that in Stafford Williamson's American Chronicle. The relevant passage appears below, since it's rather far down the page:

They´ve Gone Too Far - AND They "Broke" the Constitution

Where they went was to Iraq and Afghanistan, but in this case, it isn´t a who, it´s a what. It´s a WHAT?? Okay, that may be sloppy linguistic construction but the problem here is worth mentioning because it is the kind of arrogance that could spark a regional conflict into a global war that lasts a millennium. Pardon me, I mean, another millennium, because this one has already been going on since the Crusades, indeed, it IS the Crusades being resurrected by the same kind of intolerant religious fanatics who started the Crusades in the first place.

No, in case you didn´t pay attention in history class, I am NOT talking about the "Infidels" who captured the ancient biblical lands, I mean the Christians who were outraged by the fact that they had been relieved of control of the "holy lands" despite the generally peaceful and tolerant rule provided by Moslems then and now. That may not ring as a popular sentiment with some people, and I am sorry they have come to that conclusion because of a few hundred fanatics on the "other side" (which is to say, Moslems) who "hijacked" their religion for political purposes. But this is an action that could inflame Muslim sentiment around the world, and it should have been prevented by rules already in place that prohibit religious propaganda on government goods.

My concern here is not with the modern political content, as the article goes on to discuss the recent flap over that arms manufacturer labeling military weapons (not my business, given the general purpose of this blog), but with the casual (and untested) assumptions that a) medieval Muslim society was homogeneous, and b) Muslim rule in general was benevolent. Regarding point A, there was no single "Muslim society" in the 11th-13th centuries, something of which the Latin West was well aware, and of which the Egyptians, Arabs, and Turks were very aware. John France has done some excellent work regarding the constant infighting and warfare that plagued crusades-era Muslim society, just as Latin Christian society was afflicted with constant fighting. Regarding point B, the various sultanates, emirates, and other principalities did have a generally better track record in dealing with minorities than did the Latin West, but that has to be heavily contextualized and qualified, depending on time and place. Not to get into the business of making a numbers game of massacre, but it's worth remembering that Baybars' slaughter of Christians at Antioch and the Mongols' destruction of Baghdad made the capture of Jerusalem in 1099 rather pale in comparison. So, there's plenty of blame and atrocity to go around...

On the other hand, here's a letter to the editor which goes a bit too far in the other direction, particularly with this line:

I accept the fact that there were those Crusaders who sacked cities and treated people unjustly. However, these people were in the minority and were condemned or excommunicated by religious leaders.

Ummmm....no, not really. They weren't in the minority, and they weren't excommunicated. War in general was a nasty business, regardless of who fought it, and the "rules of war," while they did exist in various fashions, were too fragmented and uneven to apply in all circumstances. The negotiations between Richard and Saladin, and Richard's massacre of the prisoners of Acre, are both worth studying as examples of how "international" modes of diplomatic discourse and martial codes functioned in the 12th century.