This is a grey area. You could make a convincing argument to either support "Yes" or "No", depending on what aspects of the Taliban you choose to highlight. If you focus on the Taliban's fights against the Soviet and American invasions, you could claim that the Taliban was anti-colonial. If you focus on the way that the Taliban ruled, by implementing a very strict reading of Shari'a Law, the Taliban are more easily viewed as a Reactionary local movement responding to the Westernization attempts of previous Afghan monarchies -- not colonizers.
I think no because they say anti so i would not think that at all. So my answer is a Not anti-colonial force. Thank you
Yes, in small circles. They exert force on locals when not in the prescence of coallition troops.
The Taliban.
You cant beat the Taliban because they are a hard core, battle hardened and a highly motivated force. The other reasons that help in their victory are the geographical conditions, their tribal structure and their love of war. Add to this their religious zeal, steadfastness and fearlessness and what you get is a deadly cocktail of a lethal guerilla force.
He the leader of the Taliban, he organized and trained those that are in the Taliban
Taliban is not shia. Taliban members are Wahhabi which is a sunni sect. there is not relation between shia and Taliban.
The UN approved a security force to assist Afghan government.
Taliban is not a place.
Taliban insurgency happened in 2002.
In 1776 april don't eat cats
Malala Yousafzai is the young Pakistani girl who was shot in the head by members of the Taliban 9 October 2012 . She survived and went on to be an advocate for a woman's right to education .
Taliban is the correct spelling in English. طالبان is the correct spelling in Arabic, Dari, and Pashto.
The duration of Escape from Taliban is 2.77 hours.