Resolving (?) the Riddle

[naamagatus]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "susiequsie23" 
<susiequsie23 at s...> wrote:
> Naama wrote:
> If DD knew that when Voldemort resurrects again, he will have 
grown 
> stronger and more dangerous, then it makes moral sense to not try 
and 
> kill him. I say moral sense, because up until now, I could only 
> conjecture that DD hadn't tried to kill Voldemort because he knew 
> Voldemort would eventually return again. But it never really 
> satisfied me, because the moral choice would be to save lives 
*now* 
> by reducing Voldemort to vapor again: because if he did manage to 
> resurrect, then he's back at square one, not any worse than 
before. 
> But if Voldemort will return stronger, more difficult to fight, 
more 
> difficult to overcome - then it is was right for DD to not try and 
> kill him. 
> 
> 
> SSSusan:
> It may be the sinus head thing I've got going on just now... or it 
may just be me... but Naama, I'm not following this at all.  Can you 
flesh out more fully *why* it would have been RIGHT for DD to not 
try to kill Voldy *because* he knew Voldy would be returning 
stronger later?  You mean it's better to deal with a live Voldy than 
to kill him in case he resurrects later and is worse?  
> 
> Are you thinking that Voldy will ALWAYS be able to resurrect?  Or 
that (only) Harry will manage to actually *eliminate* him, rather 
than just kill him once more (which would only lead to a yet 
stronger Voldy to come later)?
> 

Yes, I think that Voldy will always be able to resurrect, and that 
DD is aware of this. If you remember in PS, DD tells Harry (I don't 
remember the exact wording) that Voldemort cannot be killed - 
because he is not human enough. And yes, that the prophecy means 
that only Harry (Neville?) can vanquish him for good. 



Naama