She also has apparently also forgotten his first attempt to use one. Was it OotP or HBP? I forget which, but it wasn't Harry's first time using (or trying to use) one. It wasn't something he just did, he seemed to want to do it.

*shrug* To me it just says, "In war, there are no rules, and in some cases, extreme measures are acceptable" though I think spitting in a teacher's face doesn't quite qualify

grrrr, it's just a book, with all respect and obssesion surrounding it, but I mean, come on, a war criminal

BWAHA Harry is a war criminal.

lol..great

Oh my goodness...HARRY POTTER IS A BOOK. Yes, Harry used an unforgiveable curse and he shouldn't have, but to make a big issue out of it is silly.

Being entertainment doesn't make it any less worthy of analysis.

That doesn't count; the spell never worked because Harry didn't mean it, ergo he never felt the desire to actually torture. In Deathly Hallows he did, hence it counts.

I was so glad Harry, indeed none of the kids, AKed anyone.

You hit the nail on the head.

So true.

FYI: Wiki is not a reliable source as it operates on submissions.

No, but at the same time there are plenty of other spells he could have used.

Indeed, culture is pointless if it says nothing about its context. The Harry Potter series does have many parrallels to the real world and yet people still say "It's just a book!" as if those comparisons don't exist. Truth is, people don't want to be challenged when they are entertained, hence the reluctance to see HP as anything more than a novel.

What Harry did was, as the name implies, unforgivable. Through all the books we are taught that they are the worst spells known to wizardkind (right from PS when we learn of the AK being used on The Potters) yet the approach to them changes, apparently, when they are used by Harry. Suddenly they are excusable even acceptable. As Dumbledore said, it is about choices - Harry made his - for better or worse, that is for us to decide. As far as I am concerned using an unforgivable is exactly that, regardless of which side you're on.

that's interesting..

Actually, wikipedia was compared to the encyclopedia britainica, and it seemed to hold its own in terms of accuracy.

Slashdot | Wikipedia's Accuracy Compared to Britannica

So back to the subject, instead of talking about how wiki is flawed, lets come up with some characters who also fit the description of 'war criminal'.

Most of the Prime Ministers we've seen have sent people to Azkaban without trial. This is a form of war crime. I think this would be a great discussion to talk about. If people do more discussing here than just saying 'OMG thats so untrue' and 'get a life'!

Ditto. Agree with you 100%. I was surprised when Harry used the killing curse because the fact that it worked meant he had enough hatred to kill , thus comparing himself to a Death Eater.

I mean, throughout the whole 7th book, the trio wanted to avoid actually using the killing curse and Harry even stood before death in a humble way.

Alas, I know Harry isn't perfect but to sink to that level...that's just my opinion. Don't hate.

Oh snap, someone stole my way to become famous on the Internet :/

That's true but as it relies upon submissions, it is still open to abuse and bias. Furthermore that was in 2005, roughly 2 years ago.

You're right though, topics such are these are supposed to generate discussion I was just highlighting, for others who may not be aware, that Wiki isn't a reliable source. As you can see, that was not in place of discussion

I agree completely with everything katiebell posted.

Yes, Harry Potter is just a book. Yes, it does have more signifigance to many persons in this world. But try putting yourself in his shoes; if someone was or was about to attack someone you cared for dearly and would possibly kill them, would you not react with the first impulse that came to your mind, even if it was something so treacherous? Not even Harry's morals could have blocked his reaction so quickly.

Although he is Harry Potter and knows more than anyone the difference between right and wrong, he is only human. As far as we know, no consequences ever came of that act, but perhaps in later years Rowling will address it and there will be no more need for discussion.

Also, it was for the greater good of both wizards and muggles, alike. The world owes him their gratitude for what he went through, even if he did happen to kill in the process. Was that one soul supposed to stand for more than the hundreds that died at Death Eaters' hands?

I wonder what she would have done in a situation like that? Asked them nicely to 'please, oh, pretty please don't hurt me!' Because, they surely would have listened.

War isn't all sunshine and daisies, with your biggest fear being sunburns and grass stains. It's life and death. Even if Harry had other spells in his arsenal, sometimes in war you have to get darker. I personally think Harry should have had to kill Voldemort with Avada Kedavra.

War is dark. It's not easy to get through. Good people die pointlessly. If Harry hadn't killed Voldemort, even though he didn't cast AK, what would the Death Eaters and Voldemort have done? He wouldn't have been 'Well, okay, I'll be nice.'

We're worrying about Dark Lords and his henchman who will not hesitate to torture and kill you.

You might as well say that since all Unforgivables are agaisnt Wizarding law, that all the Order members who fought and used Avada Kedavra should be put in Azkaban. Mrs. Weasley used Avada Kedavra, so you might as well put her on trial.

Besides, the Wizarding world isn't going to put the person who defeated the greatest dark wizard in Azkaban.

Also, there society is very different than ours. They have great things that we don't have and there are things we have that they don't. The War Criminal might hold in this world, but it probably wouldn't in that world. We might think, oh, well, since you've tortured someone you're terrible and prison is necessary, but what do the Wizards think in that situation. Harry's actions were brought on by war, even if the intent was there.

War heroes in our world have killed. And possibly done worse.... So, when they killed in the line of duty or even police officers, the muggle equivalent of Aurors, have done this... what do we do to them when it's called for? When they have to defend themselves and others?

Harry did what he had to do in the war.... I'm surprised he didn't do worse.....

War is war. It can't be sugar coated. JK didn't sugar ccoat it. She showed life at its darkest. And she did a darn good job...

What!!!!!!!!! Ohhh please Hayy could not stop to think he had done something wrong!!!It was a necessary act most likely has been passingo through his mind ever since Remus told him to be less delicate with the Death Eaters as they wouldn't be delicate with him!!!! It's abrurd to think Harry had been saying to himself "OH my God I think I did something bad" because he was thinking in the better of the good wizards of the community

wow...*shakes head*

well how come bellatrix lestrange isnt a war criminal? she killed SIRIUS!! i would do the same if i was harry! what was he supposed to do... give them kisses!? thats just ridiculus.

I'm actually appalled at the way people are willing to gloss this over so easily with an "It's just a book" or "Harry should have used fluffy bunnies". I don't think the bunnies thought that was funny at all. Seriously. What did bunnies ever do to you?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm just an otter but ... I'm sure my lapin cousins wouldn't take kindly to that ...

*Press Note* As of Press Time, Bugs Bunny, Peter Rabbit, and The Easter and Trix bunnies could not be reached for comment ...

But seriously, books being a reflection of popular thought, and HP in particular since its such a popular series ... I think the argument to dismiss this as, "It's just a book" is a bad one and sad, since it reflects our societies thinking. Popular thinking at that since it's such a popular series ...

And Pottermaniac is right when she says:


Sometimes it really is that black and white ... *cough*Quantico*cough*

*Teddy asks Otty* Because you're so happy with society today ...
O: Cruelty I understand ... I mean look at the mo- erm but not bunnies!!!!!!11111111

*Otty wants to marry Emma now*

Not that I didn't want to marry Emma before ...


That's actually not canon, and nowhere does the book say ANY of the Order ever used that curse. There's more than one way to skin a cat ... but you don't necessarily need scissors. And while we're on the subject of what Mrs. Weasley said, does that mean I can use the B word on SS now?

Okay I can already hear the echo of the resounding NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooo

Good LORD these people need to get a life..............

I agree with katiell's post at the bottom of page 1. Harry is not perfect, and perhaps we can understand the DE's actions better through what happened to Harry!

what she is trying to say makes sense, but it's not THAT big of a deal to publicize it. Especially something like that which is a somewhat opinionated question. besides, whats done is done, theres no changing it

Hmm...maybe she does have a point, but it's fiction, and it's there for us to read them and love them.

Peoples,Harry isn't perfect.If someone killed the only family that you had left,would you just go over to them and say"say that you're sorry"?No!You would probably wanna give them what they diserve,and if they killed someone who you loved very dearly and was the only family you had,they would probably deserve a lot.Of course,deep inside that is wrong,cause I belive in sincere forgivness,but hey,we're human.Harry's human.Give him a break.

I think that this whole "Ooh,Harry Potter is evil"thing is silly and is going waytoo far.

Well Harry was so messed up at the end of the story that I think that he dint care what he did.Plus would'nt you want revenge on some of the people that made your lifr miserable?
Anyways in DH Harry,Ron,and Hermione were'nt the most law abbiding (sp?) people in the world!

what was he suppose to do?! come ON! it's human nature.

this is quite stupid and insane harry is a hman being not an angle