This looks like one of the "purely out of context" answers to the question.

-1 because of the language and style, and that the answer doesn't even try to be neutral. This is not a discussion forum.

@user568458 I'll try to find more references.It's very find to find them though. I know some historians but they speak spanish.

I've removed the provocation for the answer and added the extra reference given by the OP in the comments. Please keep the comments civil.

If you guys want to see the original answer check the edit... it was far more interesting

@sklivvz thanks, I'm sorry, I didnt think it was going to generate so much controversy

The first link is just to Wikipedia. The second link is to a YouTube clip by "Truth Syria" showing a purported video clip of a US politician making claims. The third link is to Wikipedia. The picture is of an article by Robert Fisk, who is deeply opposed to US and western foreign policy and therefore not good evidence of Bin Laden being seen as a US ally.

@AndrewGrimm its a newspaper article (?) what do you want more than that? Do you think someone pro-government would say "Yes, we financed these groups, and now they are sorrounded by terrorists, but who cares, it's not my country"

@AndrewGrimm in wikipedia you have links, do your own research

@PabloSaudiBombsYemen "do your own research" the answerers are supposed to do the research, not the reader.

The US provided limited assitance to the Mujahideen Source. This pre-dates the Taliban, al-queda and ISIS. There was a civil war in Afghanistan between the US intervention and the Taliban taking power. So the Taliban were formed after the US intervention, thus breaking any direct link in my mind. Mujahideen != Taliban != al-queda These are separate groups....They have links but that doesn't make them one homogeneous blob. At best this is over simplified at worst it is totally misleading.

@PabloSaudiBombsYemen "Then do your own research" yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

I read the Wikipedia article Soviet–Afghan War (which you cite in "United States financed terrorist groups back in Afghanistan 1979") up to but not including the section Exit. The only paragraphs that talks about something that can be considered terrorism (starting with "The mujahideen favoured sabotage operations.") is entirely unreferenced.

@AndrewGrimm ok, just believe what you want. I really like history and if something I know is that coincidences dont exist. The US financed "call them whatever" (I'll call them terrorists). The newspaper is REAL, it's not a montage dood, do you think Fox News or CBS would show that? No. Who shows it? Someone who is tired of your manipulated media. Is is Bin Laden. It is imposible, even knowing he was a millionaire that he organized such a bit terrorist cell.

@AndrewGrimm Seriously, these things are not random, events in history have a cause 99% of the time. Why would Hillary even make that up? It's not going to give her more votes. Think what you want, seriously.

Noo, the US doesnt finance terrorists... Well, its happening right now in Syria, moderate rebels are not that moderate...

It's ironic how someone who uses Ad Hominem falacies ("he is against the government blah blah") sends me that link. Ahh western world, I love your hypocrisy

@AndrewGrimm That really isn't much of an argument. Of course the US guys wouldn't call them terrorists when they were "allied"! Remember the old adage "One's terrorists, another's freedom fighters?" Where's the line between war and terrorism? And from whose point of view?

@AndrewGrimm Now, in my country, we had our own taste of Soviet "help", so it's hard to be critical of someone helping against that. However, the real and tangible result of this was the Afghan Civil War (of 92-96) - the Mujahideen groups that didn't lay down arms started a war over control of the new (communist-less) Afghan state. That most likely wasn't the intention of Mujahideen supporters abroad, true. But many of those big-named terrorist groups sprung from that.

@AndrewGrimm Of course, what most of these US-bashers usually overlook is that from that point on, the regional powers intervened - supporting many different groups in turn, further exacerbating the problem. The US was involved, is partially responsible, and a lot of the weapons those groups still use today was provided by the US, but they can hardly take all the blame. What lesson can you really take from it, though?