"The war against terrorism is terrorism"
About this Quote
Woody Harrelson’s line lands like a provocation disguised as a slogan: it takes the post-9/11 catchphrase “war on terror” and flips it into an accusation. The punch isn’t subtle, and that’s the point. As an actor and public figure, Harrelson isn’t building a legal case; he’s trying to collapse a moral distinction in one breath, forcing the listener to sit with an uncomfortable equivalence: if terrorism is violence meant to intimidate civilians for political ends, what do drone strikes, shock-and-awe campaigns, black sites, and indefinite detention start to resemble?
The intent is less “all sides are the same” than “the state can outsource its ethics to language.” “War” implies rules, necessity, heroism. “Terrorism” implies illegitimacy, barbarity, and a license for exceptional measures. Harrelson’s inversion argues that the branding is doing as much work as the bombs. It’s a critique of how governments launder coercion through rhetoric, turning fear into a renewable resource that expands surveillance, militarizes policing, and normalizes collateral damage as a bureaucratic phrase rather than a human fact.
The subtext also plays to celebrity politics: a performer leveraging blunt moral clarity because nuance gets edited into harmlessness. In the early-2000s cultural climate, where dissent was often framed as disloyalty, the line operates as a dare: if you reject the comparison outright, you still have to explain why terror is unacceptable when non-state actors use it, but tolerable when it arrives with a flag and a press conference.
The intent is less “all sides are the same” than “the state can outsource its ethics to language.” “War” implies rules, necessity, heroism. “Terrorism” implies illegitimacy, barbarity, and a license for exceptional measures. Harrelson’s inversion argues that the branding is doing as much work as the bombs. It’s a critique of how governments launder coercion through rhetoric, turning fear into a renewable resource that expands surveillance, militarizes policing, and normalizes collateral damage as a bureaucratic phrase rather than a human fact.
The subtext also plays to celebrity politics: a performer leveraging blunt moral clarity because nuance gets edited into harmlessness. In the early-2000s cultural climate, where dissent was often framed as disloyalty, the line operates as a dare: if you reject the comparison outright, you still have to explain why terror is unacceptable when non-state actors use it, but tolerable when it arrives with a flag and a press conference.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|
More Quotes by Woody
Add to List

