Voldemort's animus toward the Potters/the prophecy (was Replay)

[arcum42]

No: HPFGUIDX 85824

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "erinellii" <erinellii at y...>
wrote:
> 
> > Kathy: 
> > "Merely taking your life would not satisfy me, I admit.."  Does 
> > anyone believe Dumbledore couldn't have killed Tom if he wanted 
> >to?  
> <snip> 
> 
> 
> Erin:
> 
> Actually, yes.  I believe that had Dumbledore attempted to AK 
> Voldemort, he would have failed through some circumstance he could 
> not have forseen.  Much as Voldemort failed when attempting to kill 
> Harry as a baby.  I'm not saying that Voldemort's mother's love
> would have saved him, of course.  But something would have happened 
> to prevent Dumbledore, and it might have been every bit as
> disastrous for DD as the failed AK was for Voldy.
> 

Actually, I think Dumbledore couldn't AK Tom, for reasons due to the
very nature of an Unforgivable curse. Per Bella, a few pages before
their duel, we are told this:

"Never used an Unforgivable Curse before, have you boy?... You need
to *mean* them, Potter! You need to really want to cause pain - to
enjoy it - righteous anger won't hurt me for long -"

Note that she is talking about the whole category of Unforgivables,
not just Crucio. By extension, it seems reasonable to assume that to
AK  someone you need to really want the other person to die, and 
not just because you are justifiably angry at them. He'd need the
type of hate and loathing where he wouId actually *enjoy* his
death, and I don't really see that coming from Dumbledore. 

Anyone notice that the way the Unforgivables work seems fairly similar
to the way a Patronus works, only on the other end of the spectrum?

And having said that, I'm now going to have to think about what the
other two spells needed to properly mirror the unforgivables would
be...
--Arcum