Call it what you will. The truth lies in the texts. Catholicism blamed the entire Turkish world for what a small group of terrorists did. A fatal miscalculation that some wish to be reapplied in todays circumstances.
The Turks were in the process of ethnic cleansing of the teritories recently won. So places like Cappadocia which had been Christian for centuries were very soon, not, because we have a whole people on the move, like the case of the German invasions of the West.
This is not supported by the evidence. When Jerusalem was retaken by your side, there was an ample population of Christians and Jews that were slaughtered, not by the Turks, but by the Crusaders. Same thing in Constantinople and elsewhere. What changed was the overall makeup of the cities. As Muslims moved in, they obviously became more concentrated in Muslim thinking than in Christian or Judaic thinking. And to say that Catholicism was championing the cause against ethnic cleansing begs reality. The inquisitions were in progress back home while the crusades were going on. Catholicism was flexing it's muscles and using forged laws in an effort to "Cleans" it's territories of anyone who was not Catholic. So the effort was internal and external - practicing the exact thing that you want us to believe they were fighting against.
The Byzanrine Empire, like all antique empires had, of course, no definite boundaries but depended on alliances and tributary arranngements as ell as it armie to maintain its rule. But you are going beyonf that to claim, of only by implication, that the aims of the Turks et al.were pacific. Hardly.
Salimen and the ruling sect as a whole were passive. They had no quarral at that point in time with anyone. They were shocked by the attack coming on them. They were not an aggressor against anyone at the time. The Seljuk were aggresively defending their caravans, again calling this from memory, and it turned into expansionism based in protectionism. Rather than pull their caravans which were making them Money, they attacked and attempted to conquer the people that were interfering with their income. Salimen was indeed passive - and it is ultimately why he lost his throne to his brother. He defended his kingdom until Richard tried to retake Jerusalem; then it all fell apart. Salimen could be reasoned with to an extent; but, the people were seeing his brother as the stronger by this time. The peasants, if you will, understood only that they were being attacked. The brother had them stirred up with nationalistic pride as it were. And they were all too happy to raise him to the throne and replace Salimen. Had The Catholic Empire concentrated strictly on the Seljuk and used better judgement, The Byzantine empire might have been defended, though agreements for trade would have to have been altered.