He isn't a savant at all.

Don Savant = Idiot Savant.
Basically the same thing.

I guess I missed the bit where the Wolverines wanted to impose a world-wide mediaeval, totalitarian, theocracy like the Taliban and its Al Qaeda allies. I also missed the bit in the film where they said the Wolverines were one faction in an on-going civil war when the Soviets invaded as well as the bits where they punished Americans for flying kites, not wearing beards of an appropriate length, not wearing burkas, or getting an education.

If the Taliban would strictly stay on their own soil and kill invaders and traitors, i would see no difference.
I dont need you to tell me how good my coffee is.
.
.

I love the Wolverines, not the Towel Band.

The Wolverines were an armed insurgency, but with entirely different motivations. Had they kicked out the Soviet invaders, they wouldn't have started defacing ancient art and imposed strict religious laws against women.
They say "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", but it really depends on the targets you attack. One is guerilla warfare, the other is terrorism.

the wolverines were basically an American teen aged version of the taliban. Please remember, in 1984, we were supporting, arming, and training the Taliban in their fight against the russian invaders.

This message has been deleted.

only possible moral difference is the question of whether civilians were targeted,
This was clearly not the case unless one does not consider Saddam's palaces and secret police facilities to be legitimate targets.
how much effort was made to avoid hurting them,
Given that civilian casualties are claimed to be in the "dozens"* in spite of some six hundred warheads being detonated in a three-day period, it would seem highly likely that a great deal of care was taken to avoid civilian casualties. Air attacks of a similar scale during WWII usually caused several thousand deaths.

• The
  Mother Jones
  article used as a source for this part of the Wikipedia entry actually says probably no more than a hundred.
  And I don't think the U.S. military cares whatsoever about civilian casualties.
  The US military, in fact, actually takes a great deal of care to avoid unnecessary non-combatant casualties by means of strictly enforced rules of engagement, target selection, and large scale use of precision guided munitions. Compare US caused civilian casualties today with those from any other war or from wars conducted by non-Western powers.

yeah, pretty much. Altho to me, the only possible moral difference is the question of whether civilians were targeted, how much effort was made to avoid hurting them, etc. And I don't think the U.S. military cares whatsoever about civilian casualties.
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'

This message has been deleted.

We never launched a terrorist attack in Kabul or Baghdad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(1998)
There were dozens of Iraqi civilians killed by missiles that missed their targets, possibly as many or more Iraqi military, and no U.S. or British casualties
Parse words all you want, but when you suffer no casualties and you kill harmless civilians, I call that terrorism.
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'

This message has been deleted.

How so?
"check the imdb cast list before asking who portrayed who in movies please"