Backwoodsman - Are you telling me that you actually were talking about waterfowl when you said, "If it quacks, has feathers," etc.? I must have misunderstood. I had, apparently in error, assumed you were utilizing the familiar duck-description for its conventional purpose, i.e., to draw an analogy with a subject under discussion, in this case a terrorism subject. It turns out, it seems, that you had actually just thrown in the description of the duck as a delightful diversion from all this weighty disputation. Consequently, you have given my words a relentlessly literal interpretation, apparently unaware that they were intended to comment sarcastically on what I took to be your thought-process. (Of course, you wouldn't simply pretend to misunderstand now, would you?)

So I apologize for thinking that you actually had some point to make with your duck description. Please feel free to describe other animals whenever the whim strikes you.