The Crusades weren't as significant as all that...

Hello
One hears a lot about the nasty Westerners invading the "Muslim lands". There is a lot of focus in particular on the Crusades.
However, if you look at the relationship between Christendom (for want of a better word) and the "Muslim lands" throughout history, you will see that, throughout most of this time, it was the Muslims attacking the Christians, who were only barely surviving. From the death of Muhammed, there was a series of wars initiated by Muslims against Christian ruled lands, where the aim of the Muslims was to conquer those lands and they were very successful at it. So from about 650 - 1050, 400 years, it was very much the Muslims on the offensive and the Christians being beaten everywhere. Then from 1098 - 1250 or so, only 150 years, the Crusades were an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to roll back those conquests. At around the same time the Spanish did succeed in rolling back the Muslim conquests in Iberia, however. Then, after the interval of the Mongol invasions, who attacked pretty much everybody, the Turks got back on their feet again, forming the Ottoman empire and once again began attacking Christian countries, starting with the Byzantines and the Balkans and getting as far as the gates of Vienna. Europe was under siege from these guys who styled themselves as Ghazis, from 1350 - 1700 or thereabouts, so 350 years. From 1700 onwards, the European countries military and economic superiority over the Muslims enabled them to get the upper hand and push the Muslims out of various Christian lands. From then on, Europeans were on the offensive themselves (ironically, when their own religious beliefs were in decline!). So lets say from 1700-2000, it was the Europeans in the ascendant and on the offensive, that's 300 years.
Adding those figures up, the Muslims were attacking the Christians for 750 years, whereas the Christians were attacking the Muslims for 450 years. Personally, I believe the Crusades were a defensive war (propping up the Byzantines), though most of the later (post 1700) wars were indeed offensive ones, as Europe wasn't in any particular danger of conquest from the Muslims during this time, leaving only 300 years of actual offensive warfare by Christians against Muslims. However, if you don't agree with me about the Crusades, fair enough, I don't want to get into a specific argument about the details of each crusade (I'm trying to put them in context of the total history of Christian-Muslim relations) but that still leaves Islam offensive wars of 750 years versus Christian offensive wars of 450 years.
So, hence the 150 years of the Crusades..weren't as significant as all that..in the grand scheme of things and, for most of history, it is the Muslims who were the "bad guys" attacking the Christians, rather than the other way around.
However, if someone can point to significant offensive warfare (not merely recapturing territory recently lost to Muslim invasions, like the Byzantines did in the 10th century or the Spanish reconquista - in the same way as Palestine offensive attacks against Israel are in fact defensive warfare, since they are merely attempting to recover land recently taken off them) organised by the Christians against the Muslims in the periods of Muslim offensive warfare I have mentioned above, I will reconsider this thesis..
Thanks history buffs!