Warfare is decided in the mind, as some has recently re-iterated in discussing the current Long War. I don’t find that, by itself, a very useful observation because that has been true and known for a very long time, back to at least the time of Sun Tzu.
What might be considered different now is that one side in a conflict has forsworn collateral damage as a means of changing the minds of its opponents, but even that is not unique — for instance, the passive resistance of Ghandi is an example of half a century ago. What may be historically different is that the more powerful side has done so.
A point I made earlier is that the choice of the Anglosphere to not engage in responses that create a lot of collateral damage is supported by the innate tolerance and forbearance of the USA and that such restraint is a limited resource. It is a question of which will run out first, that or the obliviousness of the Caliphascists and their fellow travelers.
It seems that it’s still a race. On one side, we have things like this anti-jihad nu-metal video, and on the other parts of the ummah accepting the existence and evil of the Holocaust. The former I have expected, but the latter is a bit surprising. I had mostly written off the ummah, deciding based on the evidence that its capacity for change would not meet the demands of our age, but perhaps I am wrong in that1.
1 The Washington Post article has complaints about no explicit condemnation of the Iranian denial conference, but that’s at best quibbling. If, as these Muslims did, accept the existence of and condemn the Holocaust, the rest is petty details. Should the situations have been reversed, I would have wanted to avoid the road of having to track every gathering of idiots and thereby open myself up to claims of support if I didn’t rush out sufficiently rapidly for such a thing in the future. Best to set a precedent of going right to the meat of the matter.