Draco and Dumbledore/ Fawkes - New pet

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 160118

> Carol:
> But confronting Draco would force Draco to try to kill Dumbledore 
on
> his own without DE backup.
<SNIP>

Alla:

How do we know that? Maybe earlier confrontation would have lead to 
exactly what happened on the Tower - namely Draco lowering his wand 
or not even raising his wand, maybe he would have accepted 
protection offer, and that would have happened indeed without DE 
around.

And may be students would have been safer for the rest of the year 
too, maybe.


Carol:
 If Snape was absent, the UV would kill him.
<SNIP>

Alla:

That should deter Dumbledore from protect the rest of Hogwarts 
population, even if it results in Snape's death? Not in my opinion.




Carol:
<SNIP>
> Rightly or wrongly, and I know we disagree here, Dumbledore trusts
> Snape and believes that he can't afford to lose him. 
<SNIP>

Alla:

Yes, I know Dumbledore trusts Snape and JKR needed to save Snape 
till the end - what I am saying that  if she made Dumbledore act 
that way to save Snape, Dumbledore looks to me as arrogant and 
reckless, only thinking about Snape safety and Draco safety and 
forgetting that he has many students under his care.

I am pretty sure JKR did not intend DUmbledore look that way, she 
intended him to give second chances every poor lost soul, but the 
fact is - he **does** looks like one to me, because if you ask me 
Hogwarts students are the ones who needed to be saved first and 
foremost.

Carol:
> As for Draco himself, confronting him would have resulted in 
failure
> to kill Dumbledore, which would have meant death for Draco himself
> once he left Hogwarts, and for his family. Voldemort doesn't make
> empty threats. And I doubt that Draco would have accepted the 
offer of
> protection from the Order unless he was facing a weakened 
Dumbledore,
> seemingly at his mercy and yet, ironically, saying that it was his 
own
> mercy that mattered. Draco had to learn that he wasn't a killer, 
but
> facing an armed and powerful Dumbledore, forced to disarm and 
possibly
> stun him to control him, would not have taught him that lesson, 
IMO.


Alla:

Draco may have tried to kill Dumbledore when confronted or not, he 
may have lowered his wand or not, he may have accepted offer of 
protection or not.

But I do think that Dumbledore **owed** it to all kids entrusted to 
his care to try and neutralise Draco as early as possible, 
regardless of whether he would have accepted the offer of protection.

 
> Carol, believing that DD not only believed that he was acting for 
the
> best but that he was correct in believing so
>

Alla:

I am pretty sure that as Magpie says what happened on the Tower 
would help good guys ( not Dumbledore's death - I am keeping my 
fingers crossed that Snape will pay for it), but everything else - 
Draco stuff, etc.

But IMO Dumbledore is **not** off the hook even if everything plays 
out Okay, because as a_svirn said - the fact that Harry lived to be 
glad that Hagrid sent him to spiders, really does not make it for 
Hagrid Okay to do so.

Same thing here, unless we are arguing that Dumbledore knows 
everything that will happen, he cannot know that everything will 
play out Okay and he **is** gambling with the lifes of his students 
even if this gamble to save Severus Snape.

JMO,

Alla