The riot was because the government froze deposits so people weren't allowed to withdraw money from the banks. My original (implied) point was that bank runs themselves don't necessarily cause the chaos they're made out to, so if anything this supports my case: if the government had allowed the bank to collapse, there may not have been riots.
I don't see how whether they cannot withdraw because the government blocked withdrawals or because the bank has no money to give away matters. The riots are caused by inability to withdraw money in any case.
No, they weren't. To quote the Wikipedia[1] article on the riots: "The uprising was a predominantly middle-class uprising against the government of President Fernando de la Rúa, who had failed to contain the economic crisis that was going through its third year of recession".
