The point at which one jumps into history is a choice, and often establishes a bias for what is right. In the present case, jumping into history at the onset of the Crusades establishes a bias that the Middle East should have been Islamic. This is, at the very least, arbitrary.
In one way scheme of history, the Crusdaes were part of the counter-attack by Christianity against Islam, after it (Islam) had been stopped at the gates of Vienna and on the east slopes of the Pyrennes.
Through the next several hundred years, the Iberian Peninsula and much of the Balkan Peninsula were re-conquered. With the turning back of the Crusades, however, the re-conquest did not continue into north Africa and the Middle East.
The spread of Islam was, moreover, checked not only in the west, but also (eventually) in Africa and in Asia. Today, the only places where Islam is spreading is among the uneducated class of India, who continue to practice a very pagan form of Hinduism, and among the disgruntled in the west. You can appreciate why Islamicists continue to burn over the Crusades.
From the Islamic standpoint, the United States entered this struggle when we confronted the Barbary Coast Pirates. They (the pirates) thought themselves justified in plundering our merchant ships because we were, after all, Christians.
Of course the Crusades was a brief counterattack on islam, but we can't make that clear in a liberal production.
At the very start of the islamo-mercial, the Pope is depicted as inventing a "war" far away, to distract the Christians in Europe from fighting among themselves by attacking peace-loving muslims minding their own business killing, raping, capturing slaves and jannisaries back east somewhere...