DUmbledore went to incredible lengths to give Harry a chance to live when his untimely death was otherwise a near certainty.

 

Just 'cause Dumbledore didn't kill people doesn't make him indecisive. Could he have ended the war if he had just gone on a killing spree? Probably. And that is where morality comes in. Killing in situations outside of self-defence can't be justified no matter how you look at it. A society survives on rules and the moment someone becomes bigger than the rules you're dooming the society.
Dumbledore ensured Voldemort's destruction and he did it in a way that allowed the Wizarding World to come out of the war on a moral high ground.
That means something even if you may not believe it.

---------- Post automerged at 06:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:26 PM ----------

I really don't understand your question but I think Dumbledore actually says that he loved Harry in the 5th book.

 

Sacrificing a fuckton of people to maintain clean hands? What horrible piece of garbage to even think about.

 

If Dumbledore goes on a killing spree he creates a lot of martyrs, makes an enemy of the ministry, and likely causes the pureblood movement to take control of the government.
Then, he gets fired from all his jobs, is attacked on sight by aurors, etc.
Eventually he finishes killing nearly all enemies and finds out there isn't anyone left in magical Britian.
He stares at Voldemort. Voldemort stares back.
"Was I really the monster here?" Voldemort asks, staring into Dumbledore's eyes.
"I'm going to kill you. I will kill all who dare do evil." Dumbledore responds.
"What about yourself. What about the lives you took. Aren't you one who 'dares do evil'?" Voldemort asks
"First I must kill you. Only then, only once I have eradicated every trace of you and every villain that dares serve you. Only then can I end my own life." Dumbledore said.

 

How in the devil EVERYONE became his enemy? This is a clear ripoff of the "The Punisher kills the Marvel Universe" and a really poor one, to boot.

 

Okay. And who gave Dumbledore the right or in this case assign him the duty to dirty his hands?

 

Your statement here is accurate.

 

No-one, that's the problem! The Ministry was a joke, the Order could've done better and besides Dumbledore, there was no-one to lead Magical Britain into the fight against Voldemort and he got himself killed (which wasn't his fault... Not really, at least, he got overtaken by his past and tried to use the Resurrection Stone (which drive it's first owner or inventor into suicide) to apologize to his sister, I think)!

 

Mixed with a hint of Light Yagami.

 

There is a precedent: in 1945 the war against Grindelwald got to the point where the public outcry for Dumbledore to end his reign of terror basically gave him carte blanche to hunt his old friend down and stop him by any means necessary.

 

And you think he didn't lead the fight against Voldemort? I'm confused. Have we been reading the same Harry Potter? I'm beginning to doubt it. 'Cause the one I read had Dumbledore create the OotP to fight Voldemort, taking steps to mobilize people against the Dark Lord, hunting horcruxes, preparing Harry to continue the fight after he's gone and even guiding Severus after his death.

 

Note that this did not involve the slaughter of Grindlewald's minions by Dumbledore.
If Dumbledore could kill Voldemort he would. He's not going to murder Voldemort's death eaters many of which may actually be under the imperius.

 

What the hell, I wrote "no-one except him", that implies, that he did, right?

 

It could have done, we don't know for sure. I do believe though that Dumbledore would have helped lead the round up of Grindelwald's followers afterwards though. He wouldn't have just turned up, defeated Grindelwald and then went home.

 

That's exactly my point. In the first war he was implored by the Wizarding World to stop Grindelwald. Something he wasn't asked to against Voldemort till the end of the 5th book if he was asked at all.
And let's face it Voldemort was a bigger badass than Grindelwald and was someone who was capable of fighting him to a stalemate.

---------- Post automerged at 07:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:13 PM ----------

Then I seriously don't get what the issue is here. You've been arguing that Dumbledore wasn't proactive enough and I've been trying to convince you that he was doing everything in his power short of going into a killing spree to stop Voldemort.

 

Wasn't the claim to be under the Imperius Curse made by the DE not implied to be BS (at least in the case of the DE themselves, on people outside of the inner circle, they used the curse plenty).

 

1. He wasn't asked to until the Ministry actually admitted that Voldemort was back.
2. What? The duel between Grindelwald and Dumbledore lasted hours, when Voldemort fought a much older Dumbledore - who wasn't trying to kill him - he only just held his own and when Dumbledore got serious (to protect Harry) Voldemort hightailed it out of there.

 

You're assuming Dumbledore tried to kill Grindelwald. That's speculation. Voldemort was under a deadline during that duel. The aurors were on their way and he knew he would be outnumbered if he didn't retreat.

 

Dumbledore doesn't know that. Is he going to risk killing innocents when he is fully capable of instead knocking them out and turning them over to the ministry?

 

No, I'm assuming that both Dumbledore and Grindelwald were trying to incapacitate the other, whether Grindelwald would have struck a killing blow is up for debate. Dumbledore couldn't, he sentenced Grindelwald to life in Nurmengard instead. Against Voldemort, Dumbledore was merely holding him off until the Aurors arrived, whilst Voldemort was trying to kill him.