Clearly, the USA is suffering from BSWS: battered Stockholm wife syndrome.
Our POTUS Maximus, Barack Obama, George W. Bush before him, et al., think that they we elected (selected not elected in the case of Bush and anointed not elected in the case of Obama) them to be the Theologian-In-Chief.
In that capacity they promulgate the, must be believed, dogma that Muslim terrorists are not Muslims even if, and especially when, the Muslim terrorists claim to be Muslims.
However, once such non-Muslim terrorists are incarcerated, the POTUS Maximi then force US tax payers to provide them with Qur’ans, halal meals, prayer rugs and allow them to pray facing Mecca five times per day—because, apparently, that is what totally non-Muslims do.
Interestingly, Muslims have been arguing for centuries that Christians perpetrated the Crusades. However, with developments such as insisting that Muslim terrorists are not terrorists now allow us, once and for all, to affirm that Christian Crusaders were not Christian. Thus, the Crusades can no longer be blamed on Christianity.
Thus, Muslims, and their non-Muslim comrades in this regard (such as Atheists), who claim that Christians perpetrated the Crusades, can now be referred to as being Christophobic and told that they are wrong.
Now, the Crusades are a complex issue, especially as there were multiple Crusades and if it were not for some of them, we would likely all be prayer facing Mecca five times per day.
However, generally speaking: the atrocities of the Crusades violate Christian principles. Thus, those perpetrating them violated Christian principles. Since Jesus stated that we would know his followers by their fruit. Since the Crusaders were not following Christian principles, we cannot blame their actions on Christianity.
However, as Islam’s doctrine of abrogation make clear: there were two main eras of Muhammad’s life and thus, two main divisions within the Qur’an and thus, two main guiding principles for Muslims. The first was the Median era when Muhammad was not very well known, did not have many followers, did not have much wealth, was persecuted, etc. During that time, Muhammad preached getting along, etc.
The second was the Mecca period when Muhammad was well known, had many followers, had much wealth (in part due to raiding), was not persecuted but was a persecutor, etc. During that time, Muhammad preached enmity, conquering, violence, war, etc.
Thus, since the doctrine of abrogation logically has the latter revelation abrogating the former the latest and thus, most up to date guidance from Allah, through Muhammad within the Qur’an, Hadith and Sunnah is that they are to be at enmity with non-Muslims.
Thus, Muslim terrorists are justified by their scripture and the example of Muhammad’s doings and actions (Hadith and Sunnah).
However, Crusaders had to rely on Papal decrees and not the Bible of Jesus’ and the Apostle’s doings and actions and did that which they did for money or lands or promises of time off of Purgatory via indulgences, salvation due to fighting for God’s cause, undergoing the “baptism of blood,” etc., etc., etc.
See my section of videos regarding the Crusades.