it was out of context. there was no firebombings at the g20. you had the title: G20 TORONTO and then proceeded to talk about a firebombing that happened a month before.(and that i hadn't heard about until today)
The title refers to anything that is RELATED to the G20 Toronto summit. In addition, I gave the date of the firebombing. There still may be ambiguity for you but that does not make it out of context. Of course, there is no ambiguity when you say "the firebombing nothing to do with the summit" and purposely remove any sentences that refer to the G20 summit. True, but I was talking about how EVERY international meeting or sporting events in Canada or most of Europe leads to destroying the town. Compared to our size, we have relatively few incidents like these. And when we do, it involves poor areas.
you may have given the date of the firebombing, but not the date of the g20, which any sane human being would not know. your post implied that it happened on the same date or at least close to. and it didnt have anything to do with the summit, unless you mean a better reason than the one they had to spend a billion dollars on "security"
The only riot I can recall at a major sporting event was this year's Stanley cup, unlike the crazy hooligan shit in Britain or dumb shit that happens in America. You guys still burn Harry Potter books and sue Mcdonalds, things that actually happen all the time, and are retarded.
Once again, ambiguity with the title =/= out-of-context quote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context On the other hand, you were taking the original passage out of context by... taking out relevant (G-20 related) context from the quote. Or I can accept the claims from the youtube video, made by the activists that did the firebombing, that states it was related to the upcoming G-20 summit How much property damage was done during some Harry Potter book burnings in the USA's "Bible Belt"? More recycled talking points
are you unable to search on youtube? its not hard. use keywords. dont be scared, it was a reupload by a news organisation. you won't get in trouble, i promise.
oh hell, ill give you the link since you cant use google (and lied about seeing the video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5RiRuo5R38&feature=related to refer back to your statement: here is what the uploader had to say thus, no danger and no connection to the g20 besides the one reason i gave earlier
The youtube video is one of the cited references on the wiki page. Don't need to search. I was just letting you make your point. You should google instead "cited reference". And I did see the video. The CORRECT video. First, the uploader has nothing to do with the activist group nor does his comment claim anything for the activist group. You just google some random video of the firebombing. If you simply went to the youtube video from the reference, it would have taken you to the CORRECT youtube video with the statement released by the group on the description.
well, my apologies for forgetting that there might be more than one video of the same thing uploaded(yes, i can admit that i am wrong). so you can go all crazy as much as you want about the CORRECT YOUTUBE VIDEO (even though they are all reuploads) I refered you to uploaders comment to show you that they were caught beforehand and didnt pose a threat and thus are not involved with the g20. The only thing they influenced about the g20 was an excuse to justify spending a billion dollars on security (your debate skills wont be able to talk me into submission, walmart. im too good)
Talking about the youtube video on the wiki page, cited as a reference for its copy of the statement released by the activist group, that you had taken out-of-context... ... ditto... ... ditto... ... ditto. What does that have to do with the activist group claiming that their firebombing was related tot he G-20? Or that you seem to disregard their own statement and take the wiki passage of the incident out-of-context. Whether or not the police were able to prevent them from attending the G-20 does not change the fact that the bank firebombing was about the G-20 summit. Oh I'm hoping you won't. It is fun seeing people struggle.
just because wikipedia refered to it doesnt mean its the official video. the official video is on another webpage, which i found. and wikipedia does not link to it. why? because its fucking wikipedia. guess you forgot what we were fighting about. about the fact that you thought the firebombing had relevance to the g20. i said the only relevance to it is the justification for upping the security costs. i've been reading your posts, why haven't you been doing the same? they just said they'd be present at the g20. the attack had nothing to do with the g20. it was about the rbc sponsership of the olympic games, government, tar sands, and stolen land, homelessness blah blah blah etc etc. see above
