Introduction:

The rejection or condemnation of a particular idea or act by individuals must be based on a cognitive approach that underpins their opinions, otherwise their condemnatory speech and actions would be meaningless. This is perhaps one of the problems of the intellectual class in society, the "problem of methodological ambiguity and its occasional loss." The crises we see are fundamentally due to a methodological error that has led to a cognitive error. By cognitive approach, I mean "a set of meanings, beliefs, judgments, information, facts, concepts, and intellectual perceptions in various fields formed by humans of different races, religions, and sects as a result of their repeated attempts to understand the phenomena and objects surrounding them([1])." By transcending affiliations associated with geographical areas and moving towards a new horizon imposed on us by globalization, which has encompassed the sectors of economy, communication, culture, and politics, this vision will subsequently form a virtual perspective on the terrorism approach that we want to dismantle throughout this study, with its various races, sects, factions, and geographies as a global, multi-faceted and multi-objective crisis.

Problem of the study: We are talking here about terrorism as an approach that has resulted in this act, which necessitates dismantling the cognitive approach, which will facilitate our fight against terrorism by combating the approach on which terrorism is based. As for armed terrorism, security intervention is decisive in this case.

Study hypothesis: This study assumes that the cognitive approach to the crisis of terrorism is based on political, economic, military, and informational roots and is not limited only to cultural and religious roots. Terrorism is the product of an approach that involves ethnicities, nationalities, sects, and organizations. Therefore, dismantling the structure of the cognitive approach leads us to the knowledge of the mechanism of combating terrorism and helps us build a counter-cognitive approach.

Terrorism as a Result of Violence Throughout History

Terrorism is a global crisis that is not limited to a specific race, geography, or religion and is the most dangerous threat to peace and security at an international level. Terrorist acts are the result of many stages, starting with inclination, then extremism, and the formation of extremist ideas, leading to violence as a means of change, as is the case in many crimes. To date, there is no internationally agreed-upon definition of terrorism, but the international community has agreed that there is a set of actions that can be called terrorism, including crimes related to terrorism, such as targeting maritime vessels, hijacking civilian aircraft, using nuclear and chemical weapons against civilians, kidnappings, and human trafficking. Terrorism itself is not a new phenomenon; however, the early twenty-first century has been characterized by a sharper focus on this issue and increased awareness of terrorist acts and groups([2]).

Historically([3]), violence is not a recent development. Fossils, papyri, and drawings confirm the use of violence before the emergence of religions and the establishment of laws to meet the needs of those who resort to violence. Some ancient nations even depicted violence as part of their cultural structure, believing that what they were doing was a legitimate right to self-defense. It is necessary to differentiate between force as a reaction to defend oneself in the face of a threat and violence, which is the excessive use of force([4]). This leads us to the hypothesis that ancient civilizations did not distinguish between violence resulting from anger and feelings of weakness and violence based on law. Therefore, we must examine the factors that have created extremism leading to violence, as follows:

•    The lack of knowledge that generates barbarism in dealing with others, and the misinterpretation of religious texts in a

distorted manner lacking in-depth understanding and proper comprehension of the true meaning([5]). This creates fertile intellectual grounds for the recruitment of thousands of terrorists with millions of sympathizers, as is the case with the Houthi militia in Yemen. United Nations reports have confirmed the Houthis' alteration of school curricula for students to align with the doctrine of the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist, spreading extremist ideas that serve their religious and political agendas([6]).

•    Imposing ideologies that contradict sound human nature, and not necessarily of a religious nature. These ideologies can be of a party, individual, or collective nature.

•    Politicizing religion to control the less cultured and aware people under the pretext of achieving justice for them, which generates violence against individuals who reject this idea. Many academics even consider it the worst form of tyranny. Most often, it is carried out by individuals and organizations claiming a connection to God([7]). For example, the Muslim Brotherhood raised the slogan "Freedom and Justice" to attract marginalized groups in 2013, and the Islamic penalty was imposed on an Egyptian Christian citizen by cutting off his ear as a punishment for harassment not mentioned in Islamic Sharia([8]).

Deconstructing the Historical Image of Terrorism Here, we want to address the traditional stereotypical image of a historical problem we now call terrorism. The individual did not carry out the terrorist act alone; there were environmental factors that provided training, planning, and preparation elements for the terrorist act. We address in this regard the causes and factors that create a stereotypical image of criminal and terrorist acts throughout history, considering it a justified act by human groups. Sometimes confusion arises in the inability to distinguish between violence to enforce the law and resistance to defend the homeland against the occupier, and on the other hand, illegal and unjustified violence. Defining Types of Terrorism and Distinguishing Them from the Concept of Resistance: In this case, hypotheses can be presented as breaking the traditional stereotype that has accumulated over decades regarding violence and terrorism. This definition will become a conceptual one, and the reason for this is that defining concepts is what breaks the pattern, and thus defines the new cognitive approach. Therefore, establishing these hypotheses breaks the cumulative pattern and establishes the new cognitive approach, which is an alternative to the known approach that generated the wrong pattern for understanding the problem, which is "terrorism." •    Individual terrorism: An act not necessarily armed, carried out by a single individual to achieve a goal or goals planned and prepared in advance([9]).

Group terrorism: An act not necessarily armed, carried out by a specific human group to achieve a specific goal or goals, such as imposing a certain point of view([10]).

State terrorism: An act not necessarily armed, carried out by the state and usually taking on a legal and legitimate character by those managing the state, motivated by disciplining a certain group, ending a certain idea, or seizing the rights of others.

Resistance: By resistance here, we mean the reaction by a state, a group of people, or an individual against an attack on them by an individual, individuals, entity, entities, state, or states. This resistance has certain conditions, including being genuine and realistic, meaning that the war against terrorist organizations like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and the resistance by these organizations, should not be considered resistance. Resistance should be in harmony and consistent with the proper human nature, meaning that the resistors must have a realistic vision to push away the real injustice upon them. There are several types of resistance, all of which fall under the targeted cognitive structure of this study.

•    Intellectual Resistance: It is the action of an individual, a group of people, or a state, to prepare the intellectual environment of their nation to create a resistant intellectual culture. This type of resistance is the most important in all liberation movements from any tyranny or occupation, regardless of the nature of that tyranny ([11]), and regardless of the nature of that occupation. Intellectual resistance here means everything related to intellectual work, whether scientific innovations, discoveries, or information technology, and the like ([12]).

•    Economic Resistance: It is the creation of self-sufficiency, which produces independence in all its aspects.

•    Political Resistance: As an important type of resistance, it has its fields in local, regional, and international arenas. It is an essential activity for the philosophy of the state and its policies in general, in confronting the politics of others. It may resolve many global and strategic issues politically and prevent armed force intervention as an alternative to political negotiations.

•    Armed Resistance: As the most widespread phenomenon, even if it is the least in comparison to the previous types, it appears as a powerful and popular phenomenon and inspires many people. There are several characteristics that resistance should have, as it is a continuous human phenomenon and will continue for a long time. These characteristics distinguish it from terrorism as a global problem that continuously harms humanity. The issue: The cause defended by the resistors should be legitimate from all perspectives and directions, whether these perspectives are ideological, legal, or religious, meaning that it should not be a controversial issue. Issues of liberation from colonialism, injustice, and the like are legitimate issues and carry all aspects of legitimate resistance. Emphasis should be placed on full awareness of the issue, as awareness of the issue is more important than the issue itself.

•    Resistance objectives: Each action has a goal that its initiators want to achieve. So, what are the objectives of resistance? Resistance usually aims to correct an imposed reality with the real one. The occupation of a country changes its real situation from independence to occupation, as well as other types of occupation. Every occupation is a form of terrorism, as it results from an unnatural and illegal phenomenon, regardless of the form of occupation. Therefore, determining the objective of resistance effectively contributes to defining the mechanisms and means of resistance, thus shortening the duration of resistance action and yielding positive results. For example, when armed resistance against the American occupation ([13]) of Iraq began in 2003, the resistance made deadly mistakes, including a lack of clear vision and not defining resistance objectives in a fixed and tight manner. In addition to this, the multiplicity and complexity of resistance factions and the absence of a strategic council that brings together resistance factions and determines resistance objectives during and after the resistance, that is, after the occupier leaves or the occupation period ends, negatively affected the Iraqi situation in general. Moreover, the multiplicity of political decision references for resistance and its cognitive authority facilitated the entry of terrorist factions within the resistance. In contrast, we note that the Vietnamese resistance ([14]) against the American occupation was strikingly organized and under unified leadership, which achieved positive results for this movement, later forming a severe defeat for the United States in the twentieth century. Therefore, defining the objectives of resistance is essential for the reasons mentioned earlier.

The reference of resistance: There is no doubt that any small or large issue must have a reference that defines its objectives and controls its movement within society. This reference is necessarily a cognitive one.

Sources:

([1]) Al-Deehani, Mishal. "The Cognitive Basis of the Curriculum." College of Education, King Saud University, Department of Curriculum and Teaching Methods, December 2017.

([2]) United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Report on Terrorism and Violent Extremism, 2020.

([3]) Salman, Kazem. "Political Developments in Mesopotamia and Palestine from 331 BC to 1000 AD." Master's Thesis, College of Arts, University of Baghdad, 2005.

([4]) Al-Hasan, Ehsan Mohammed. "Sociology of Violence and Terrorism: An Analytical Study in Political and Social Violence." Amman: Dar Wael, 2008.

([5]) Ben Zian, Malika. "Violence and Theoretical Approaches to Explaining It." University of Skikda, Algeria, December 2020.

([6]) https://shortest.link/mrCS

([7]) Bagoura, Al-Zawawi. "Religion Politicization and Revolutions in the Islamic Present." 2015.

([8]) https://www.almasryalyoum.com/news/details/1865580

([9]) "Readings in the Russian Revolution: Philosophy of Terrorism - From Individual Violence to Organized Revolution." Lebanese National Defense Magazine, no. 41, 2002.

([10]) Hoffman, Bruce. "Inside Terrorism." Columbia University Press, 2017.

([11]) Lousif, Sofiane. "Cultural Resistance to French Colonialism in Algeria: Manifestations and Reflections." Algerian Historical Journal, no. 150, 2015.

([12]) Saul, Ben. "Defining Terrorism in International Law." Oxford University Press: UK, 2006.

([13]) Kissinger, Henry. "Does America Need a Foreign Policy? Toward a Diplomacy for the 21st Century."

([14]) Khalifa, Amal. "America's Defeat in Vietnam: A Comparison Between the Vietnamese and Palestinian Experiences." Cairo: Madbouly Library, 2005.