So? Your idea of morality is "they are stronger than me, so anything goes"? Stop being a complete and utter fucktard for once, and look at what I wrote. I did not remotely indicate that, as the context shows. When you are AT WAR, and the other side has advantages, you cannot afford to concede them easy outs. For the Children, it is a similar case to guerilla warfare. Are the guerilla fighters evil for not fighting an enemy with tanks straight up and face to face so the enemy has a chance to surrender? Are they wrong for sneaking up and killing enemy soldiers by stealth without giving them a chance to switch sides? Don't be absurd. This is the same thing - they are war with an enemy they cannot safely capture or take prisoner. As Valda pointed out (in one of the more humorous passages of the series) live witches are somewhat hard to hang or put on trial, etc. They have NO recourse other than to kill them.

You mean the supernatural enhancements that made Gareth Bryne all giddy in the last book? The color-shifting cloak that identified him to the Children?
It's WAR, you imbecile! Why did Egwene try to sneak up on the White Tower to change the chain? Why did she not go openly (actually she did, in effect, but that was just her own stupidity and ineptitude, not any effort at fairness)? Was not being stronger in the Power than any woman currently in the White Tower with weaves none of them knew not sufficient advantage?

Because she's not allowed to. You SHOULD know that, since every now and then you try to dredge that restriction up as proof of her and her ilk's moral superiority (and what happened to your moral indignation over rapists anyway? According your own arbiter of all that is right about the Tower, what Alanna did is actually worse than gangbanging a minor - or at least it is in the case of Lan who, it could be argued, willingly signed up for it, given the oath he offered Moiraine; Alanna lacks even those excuses, since Rand had no intention of being a warder). The simple fact is, the Tower derives greater advantages from forgoing actually committing to a conflict, so Alanna could not. From her speech, she implies that she would have no qualms about killing them if she could, and only prudence and the limits of her abilities would keep her from doing as much. And this particular case is irrelevant, unless you can find a time I EVER said an Aes Sedai would be wrong in that situation.

Because they have more advantages that way. There is no real check on their powers. Your assertion is purely rhetorical and unsupported by any evidence or argument. There are three very specific and limited restrictions on Aes Sedai's actions, which have numerous ways around them, and fail to cover an extreme range of abilities. The Children also do not use the Power as a weapon, and Asunawa does not lie. So he is just as restrained as any sister, but he lacks the whole scope of political, social and One Power options a sister still possesses.

Did I say it was? Ever? No, because that would be the PoV trap. For all that you claim I bandy it about so much, you plainly still have no idea what that means. The rule of the PoV Trap is that a character's opinion does not make for a fact. Period. It would only apply if I said that the Aes Sedai are Darkfriends, and cited the Children's opinion as evidence. You, on the other hand, do it all the time for Egwene and the Aes Sedai, which is why I have to bandy it around so much. And here we come to another logical fallacy in your arguments - you imply that the frequency of my use of the PoV trap description of another's position somehow invalidates that description. Just because you are tired of me identifying a mistake does not mean I am wrong or that people are not making that mistake.

As for the Children, regardless of how wrong they are, it does not change the fact that they act on their beliefs, which is a sort of corollary to the PoV trap. No matter how wrong a character's belief, he or she is as likely to act on it as on a true belief. The Children believe that channeling is evil, and while they might be off base, there are at least valid reasons for entertaining that argument.

Sammael had no inclination to open hostilities with Rand.
And? The fact that their superior position gives them that luxury does not mean they would be wrong to forgo it and proceed with that course of action. They know it would be disastrous for them, and they refrain from prudence. Here is another case of you making the same mistake, and me being forced to correct you on it AGAIN. Once more, you assume only the best possible interpretation for your side, and refuse to acknowledge that real benefits and potential gain or profit that would obviously accrue to your favored characters from their course of action. You demand that their every action which benefits another or refrains from doing the maximum harm be treated as purely altruistic, and refuse to consider the benefits to themselves from acting in this manner.