Look, your comprehension of vernacular English sucks, so don't quote it. By basic combat situations, I referred to standard rules for real combat. Quoting this comment, in regard to a One Power issue is meaningless. You are not proving ANYTHING about standards I set, by quoting a comment that certain rules are inapplicable. It's not about use of the power, it's about weapons and functionality. Having the One Power means there is a higher standard of behavior applicable, because a channeler has more options. The Power can protect without harm, as a gun cannot, and can be applied in non-lethal manner, as most weapons cannot. Meanwhile, there is a lower standard applied to treatment of channelers, since they have more options and cannot be conventionally disarmed. Rand against an army is incapable of being reasonably certain of safety from them, as opposed to a limited and personal confrontation.
In the first place, there is no proof that he can do the former, though Egwene could have. In the second, there is no way he can do the latter to prevent them from harming anyone else. Because he handled a formation of a small number of men at close range, while they were standing still, to claim he could do that over miles, to hundreds of thousands of moving individuals, is beyond absurd. When have you EVER seen Rand do anything like that? He couldn't even attack individuals, with the scope, just blast at general areas and hope he hit them. Without the watchtower, he couldn't even do that. Furthermore, since Rand has demonstrated his ability to restrain himself when possible, he must be given the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he could not do it. Egwene, on the other hand, has all the motive in the world to cruelly murder helpless sul'dam. If it were Nynaeve, who has, in the past, forgone such opportunities, she might get the benefit of the doubt, but Egwene has proven nothing of the kind, just multiple statements of intent to kill with the Power as long as she is reasonably sure she won't get punished for it. The Oath Rod is, as someone pointed out in this thread, merely a political convenience to preserve Aes Sedai reputations and unity, so her prior cases of restraint in service to the Oaths do not count toward that proof of intent.
That's the POINT! He was too far away to perform such a weave. He is under no obligation to forcibly disarm anyone (and neither is Egwene), but once they ARE disarmed, and you are cognizant of that fact (as Egwene must have been, since she disarmed them), it becomes murder to kill them.

You keep accusing me of irrationality, but you are the one without any sort of grounds, other than making up absurd standards to try to prove that someone has done something as bad as Egwene.

The one sentence has nothing to do with the other! Rand was not in such a position. If you want to contend that he could render a whole army helpless, than every character and reader who remonstrates with Elayne for being foolhardy or careless, every Maiden who pitches a tantrum everytime Rand goes somewhere alone, is a complete moron.

Anyone with half a brain knows that disarming someone is far more difficult than killing them. Even Egwene knows as much, according to the quotation in a prior post, where she advised the novices as much. If is it possible for a single channeler to disarm an entire army, any mundane threat is impossible.

The burden of proof is on the one asserting something can be done, in spite of any evidence or prior examples of it. Your argument is akin to claiming that Egwene is evil for not resurrecting the allies who died fight Mesaana alongside her, or for not bringing the dead Seanchan back to life to stand trial. Or like claiming that just because you can lift 20 pounds of weight, you should be able to life 100,000 pounds.

These are NOT rules of war, they are rules of MORALITY! Right and wrong! And Egwene was NOT on a pitched battlefield, she was alone with two women she had rendered helpless, who were incapable of rejoining their own side, much less providing any sort of aid to their side or harm to hers. A battle going on does not automatically cancel their obligations to act like decent people. If they had been fighting or there were combatants in the corridor, or Egwene had ANYthing else to do, she could be excused for using lethal weaves. But not after she had first disarmed them, and could easily have directed the effort she used to murder them to holding them both safe and secured.

No one is saying Egwene violated the rules of war. The rules of war have no applicable bearing in that situation, and none at all in WoT, except as a standard of comparison. Rules of war only apply between combatants who agree to them. Allied punishment of Japanese war criminals after World War 2 was something of a war crime, since Japan never agreed to the rules they were accused of violating. Therefore, they certainly do no apply to WoT characters. The reason no one would blame anyone for following up a disarming stroke with a killing stroke is because there is almost no real world circumstance analogous to what can be done with the Power. Someone who loses a sword has only become less capable of violence, not INcapable. By contrast someone who drops a gun, is comparatively INcapable, especially towards people confronting him with loaded firearms, but there is no "disarming stroke" by which you can remove a gun, while remaining safely out of range, through means that are variously lethal. Egwene freed the damane with Air, and switched to Fire, arguably her weakest Power (as it is the one with which she never claims any special ability, unlike Earth, Water or Air), to set the sul'dam aflame. She could have simply stayed with Air and bound them completely safe. The closest "real" analogy I can think of at the moment, would be Indiana Jones disarming an enemy with his whip, and then drawing his gun to kill the now-unarmed foe. Which would be murder. If Egwene had simply set the whole quartet on fire, I would not complain, and from day one, I have defended her shooting down the to'raken and the much greater quantity of life, including people from her own side lost, because that was a battle, and there was no reasonable alternative. Expecting her bind instead of kill is reasonable, while expecting her to disarm instead of kill is not. You are comparing Rand's failure to make the unreasonable choice to Egwene's refusal to make the reasonable one.

Which is why Rand is in the clear. Egwene was not in that situation, since she was safe at the moment, and HAD rendered them hors de combat.
When you take away their freedom or means of self defense it is your responsibility. The minute they were separated from their damane, they became her responsibility. Egwene made a choice for them, by taking away their weapons. It might have been the right and moral choice, just as raising a child is the right and moral choice, over leaving it in the dumpster. That does not give you the right to beat the kid.

That comparison is insane or you don't understand words. NO strike was called for in her situation. The weaves have nothing to do with the morality. Egwene effected the deaths of people whom she had no legitimate reason or moral justification for killing. The fact that she took specific pains to kill only them only highlights how unnecessary her actions were. Rand did not have such a luxury, was my point, he was up against massively superior numbers, whom he had to kill as quick as possible to prevent them doing more harm. Egwene had two unarmed women, completely in her power
It is important, because it speaks to what options they had.
She can do the same thing with them that she does with the damane. Except they don't ALSO need to be shielded.
Not right there. There were channelers about who were perfectly capable of freeing the damane, by killing anyone shielding them, or working through any knots on their shields.
No he could not. You need to prove that is possible. By your own admission, it is possible to render two or more non-channelers bound and helpless, since you cite Rand doing just that. One the other hand, we never see anyone walling away a whole army. I am pretty sure you have no comprehension of the size of armies. Even if they could make a wall of Air bigger than anyone has ever been seen to make in the series or perform feats of Earth-moving unseen since the Breaking, you have thousands of soldiers with weapons, capable of getting out. If they have weapons, they are fair game. Egwene made sure to remove the sul'dam's weapons.
Such distinctions are absurd in combat, and far less significant than the ability to actually cause harm compared to the mere theoretical possibility of regaining the ability to cause harm.
Yes, because fire is a real thing and solid Air is not. Much less solid Air conforming to very precise dimensions to hold a person immobile without crushing or suffocating them.

No, he was in the same situation as Egwene, with even LESS requirement to restrain himself, given the adverse correlation of forces. Rand was facing armed and dangerous people. Egwene was facing women she had rendered helpless. If Rand had killed them once they were immobilized, if say, he could not have figured out the gateway conundrum, and decided he didn't want to worry about pursuit, that would have been just as wrong. So, for that matter, would have been punishing the Seeker for lying to him.
They were killing soldiers in battle, they were not slaughtering disarmed prisoners.
If they had done it after he had no bow, that would have been murder.
No she turned them into non-combatants, and murdered them.
For bullshit reasons. They were evil and murdering, and she knew it. She just didn't want to cooperate with Rand, whether out of envy and petulance, or because she upheld Moiraine's position about the dangers of his military success.

She lashed out against Children of the Light, who were only talking, and she spent all of tDR looking for excuse to use violence with the Power, to the point that Nynaeve, who has nothing but contempt for the Tower and its practices, and who is infamous for her temper, was defending the normal Aes Sedai standards, while Egwene obstinately affected ignorance of any middle ground between blasting people with lightning or dying herself.

The to'raken were instruments of war, under the control of the enemy. The sul'dam were helpless, they were not among their fellows of her foe, and they had no means of harm, compared to what Egwene had taken from them. She was perfectly safe binding them with flows of Air, as she has no problem doing against helpless friends.
Then why did Egwene set on fire people who could not harm her, but let the soldiers flee?
Yes.

Why not? Same rule applies to Adelorna as to the sisters and novices held on the to'raken.
The soldiers were no threat in those circumstances. Rather than waste time murdering sul'dam why not directly kill the soldiers, who had weapons, and if properly briefed and trained, would have killed Adelorna rather than allow her to be rescued.

Which is the point. You need some proof that the woman who was telling Egwene why picking a fight would be a bad idea would have joined in if Egwene had not, as you admit, started it. Once she started a battle, they were not going to sit there like lumps, or sulk in a tent for three days before deciding to help.
A friend in a battle is generally sufficient encouragement for anyone else. Right or wrong doesn't matter, you get your people out alive first. What sort of sociopath would sit there and watch a friend fight alone in mortal danger, because they disagreed with the reasons for the fight? Not to mention, there is a degree of trust extended there. For all they knew, Egwene had a valid reason, that she had seen the Children trying something.
Yes. Because she did. Nynaeve and Elayne joined a fight in progress.
What deranged fantasies? Why is it okay for Elayne to claim rulership over the Two Rivers, based on a lapsed claim that her nation failed to enforce by protecting the Two Rivers from foreign enemies, but it is not okay for Tuon or her mother to reclaim the rulership held by her ancestor? House Paendrag never conceded their loss of the wetlands, it belongs to them by the same rationale that Elayne has a claim on the Two Rivers.
And their counter-attack was based on mistaken beliefs about enemy capabilities, not mistaken assumptions of White Tower enmity. Incompetence does not change your required dealings with an enemy. If they have a gun, you can kill them, regardless of whether or not they are capable marksmen. The Tower can channel, and they are hostile to the Seanchan efforts to reclaim Hawkwing's kingdom for his rightful heir. That makes them valid enemies, the attack on the Tower a valid military operation, and it does not relieve Egwene of any moral responsibilities during that battle.

It's not a straw man, I argued the only possible extension of your absurd and pointless digression about the Seanchan attacking the Tower. A straw man argument is attacking a position you have invented and attributed to your opponent. The fact of the Seanchan attacking or not has no bearing on whether or not Egwene is justified in setting fire to specifically disarmed women.

As for my being on record, your track record of incomprehension suggests you don't know what you're talking about. The sort of normal combat situation in which I would not have a problem, is if it was an ACTUAL combat situation, where the woman in question were CAPABLE of combat. She set them on fire, rather than fight actual combatants, after she had specifically taken steps to prevent them from participating in the combat.

Simply that regardless of the circumstances of how they came to be in the Tower, the sul'dam are still entitled to not being murdered.
Now who's making the straw man argument? If she had given such an order, that would be an additional wrongdoing, and would have nothing to do with her ignoring the basic rules of morality.
I didn't invent murder. I am not asking selectively for this situation, I am holding the same standard for all such situations, wherein one person cannot do anything and the other can, and murders them pointlessly.

But they ARE a sham, because they spirit CAN be. They can deceive and commit violence, regardless of whether or not they initiate it. All an Aes Sedai needs to do is convince herself she is threatened, by taking specific pains to put herself into a dangerous situation. If a sister can evade the Oaths by thrusting herself into a battle where she has the option to remove herself, or even has people demanding that she not move into the fight, then she can manufacture a threat out of any situation. She can pursue a fleeing foe and feel threatened by the possibility of him turning on her. She can tell herself that a Child of the Light would want to kill her anyway, and convince herself that any movement is the beginning of a threat. She can send her Warder to attack them, and freely use the Power as a weapon the moment one raises a sword to defend himself.
Unless she chooses to believe you are lying.
Then explain the damane. You know very well that any sul'dam who refused to participate in the fight would be just as liable to punishment, even death, and are just as much under orders and lacking agency as the damane or any conscripted soldier.

That was not even to her friends, that was to Theodrin & Faolain.

All right, maybe I was mis-remembering the sequence.
So the degree of hypocrisy is lessened, that still does not alter the charge of wrongdoing on its own.
She was no longer under attack from them. In any event, she should not be looking for excuses and justifications to set people on fire because she does not like them.
Falsely so, since Aes Sedai can deceive and manipulate circumstances to kill people with the Power. The expectation that people should raise their hands in surrender if an Aes Sedai looks at them funny, lest she think she is being attacked, and destroy them, is absurd. What is more, by forbidding such a limited type of a particular activity (violence and deceit), the Oaths create an impression of legitimacy to the loopholes. If an Oath-sworn sister says something, people are forced to assume it is true, because it passed a false test, and likewise, a sister who used the Power as a weapon would be presumed to be in the right, as Perrin so assumes with Kiruna, because no one thinks about the real meaning and loopholes. Egwene herself falls into that trap with Turese, and her wish for the Oath Rod. She was still deceiving the sister, she just wished for the Oath Rod to give her the illusion of legitimacy. If she's sworn the First Oath, she can't "lie" so anything she says, no matter how deceptively intended, is okay. She's wishing for a moral shortcut, and there is nothing good about that.
Regardless of how threatening they actually are.
The evidence of the books seems to suggest otherwise. The Windfinders and Wise Ones are far better integrated into their societies, with no such Oaths. And they are better channelers as well. They fall short of the Aes Sedai only in scope of knowledge, due to their circumstances limiting their focus.

One of the most sensible things Egwene says in the series is the bit you quoted her saying to Theodrin & Faolain, and that directly relates to their interpersonal relations with other people.

The real application of the Oaths is a political tool to serve unity of the Tower, but in that case, any Oath would suffice. It is the allegiance to a common rule that creates the unity. And unity occurs elsewhere with no such gimmicks. As with the false legitimacy granted by the Oaths, it is a case of using them as a crutch. The Tower and sisters found them the most prominent and easy thing to fall back on, rather than building true institutional loyalty that EVERY group in the real world or in WoT maintains without the benefit of the Oath Rod.

And that is assuming that such political unity benefits anyone except the Tower leadership. As soon as the Tower is too busy to get up in everyone's grill, inventors start oozing out of the woodwork to stimulate a technical revolution. Once they no longer have a monopoly on the One Power, initiates start innovating and rediscovering lost abilities. Unity does not serve their development, only their political power.

The real gain of the Oaths is that they prevent sisters from committing to any other causes or alliances, allowing them to always have an escape hatch, whether by giving themselves an out to renege on their end of the deal, as Coiren pulls off with Sevanna, or by forcing the sisters to refrain from taking the ultimate direct action on behalf of any agenda. Now sisters have an excuse never to put their money where their mouths are and support a Clausewitzian "continuation of politics" by fighting for their causes, allies and puppets, and maintain some plausible deniability, even if the cause goes down. They adopted the Oaths for the same reasons the Sea Folk refuse to fight for Elayne.

Their honesty has nothing to do with their credibility, but rather with their necessity of supporting her cause due to lack of other options. Faolain & Theodrin are all but forced to by her promotions, Siuan & Leane have no other path to power or respect, and Elayne & Nynaeve love her as they do not any other players.

I am talking about things like her concerns with Turese regarding Verin in her room. And again, I am trying to give her credit for valuing honesty to even a slight degree.

Except in Sandersonian instances. Fine, I concede, Egwene's concern over the Oaths is entirely and solely about accumulating political power, and has nothing to do with the virtues of honesty and restraint of violence to which they pay lip service.
I don't see how anything Egwene did sets the stages for any kind of positive change. She wreaked havoc on the established checks and balances, and didn't just gather power through influence and position, but by changing the laws to do away with most practical ways for the Hall to check the power of the Amyrlin Seat. She certainly didn't seem to change anyone's mind about inclusiveness or about casting a wider net for initiates.
But no one attacks a sister, and they are all far too preoccupied with situations where the Power as a weapon is not an attractive situation. It's like Nynaeve & Elayne not getting around to asking Moghedian how to Travel - the whole time they had her, they were confined in one place, and never did anything more than discuss whether or not to leave. The moment they put their minds to leaving, they'd have had a "duh!" moment and set in on her about it. Throughout the series, the sisters are exclusively concentrating on the Dragon Reborn or their civil war. No sister is ever in a position where it would be more useful to kill someone than to seek other objectives. The sisters with Perrin, Rhuarc & Dobraine, for instance, were more interested in controlling the situation with Rand, than in eliminating the Shaido, or they could have embraced one of the myriad excuses available to let them follow the battle plan.
Which would not have done them a hell of a lot of good. We're back to a battlefield situation, where their tiny numbers wouldn't last long.

No one was objecting to their right to live that way. Aram was ridiculing Perrin's right to live according to his own values, and Raen & Ila are the ones insisting other people should live by the WotL. They simply can't do anything without being total hypocrites. All Perrin did was point out how it is bullshit, Aram made sneering comments without addressing his points, so Perrin answered him in kind (and cut right to the point), whereupon Egwene takes Aram's side and makes the most unfair characterization ever of Perrin.

When Perrin pointed out how refusing to act against evil leaves evil free to harm others, Aram snidely accuses him of being unable to overcome his baser instincts. Perrin's reply "I'll bet you run away a lot" could not have had any effect on someone who HAD overcome his baser instincts. That Aram feels the sting shows just how full of shit he is. And Egwene has the temerity to say "I think it is interesting to meet someone who doesn't believe his muscles can solve every problem." Is there ANYone who deserves that criticism less than Perrin? For that matter, who does Egwene know who DOES believe his muscles can solve every problem? She admits Rand is gentle, and Perrin makes Rand look like a thug. Mat tries to use his brain even when it is insufficient to the task. Egwene, on the other hand, if you substitute the Power for muscles, is very definitely guilty of that mentality, and it was Perrin who remonstrated with her for it.

If it is a case of live and let live, Egwene was on the side of the people who think everyone should follow their ways, and snarking off at Perrin, who is more than willing to let the Tinkers go their way, whatever they might choose. Perrin lets Tinkers decide whether or not to choose the sword. Egwene refuses to let Aes Sedai have that choice, because she wants to run a tighter ship.

Which makes it worse! She was the one MADE them unarmed. If they chose to foolishly disarm without ascertaining Egwene's intentions, it would have been on their heads, since you are not obliged to accept surrenders if the exigencies of the situation militate against it. Egwene did not refuse to accept their surrender, she rendered them hors de combat and THEN distinctly and separately killed them.
And if they had been, it would have been "tough shit, watch where you wander." Collateral civilian casualties are acceptable when the one inflicting them is not responsible for them being in position to be harmed. For instance, the people killed at Pearl Harbor. The Japanese did not force them to live on or near a military base, so the Japanese are not responsible for their deaths. Egwene DID turn the sul'dam from fighters into noncombatants, and THEN killed them. If they died as a subsequent effect of what she did to take them captive, that would be okay. If they died because they were in the way of an acceptable objective, that would be fine. They died because she chose to set them on fire, instead of the armed soldiers around them, even as she was going against what she knew to be prudent tactics, to make special efforts to spare the lives of people who were infinitely more dangerous. The only relevance of Rand's encounter with the Seanchan to this situation is what Aviendha had to say about the damane, that they were "faithful dogs who would have killed you rather than be free." Egwene arbitrarily chose to take pains to protect women like that, while murdering women who posed much less danger and less effort to contain safely.
She says no such thing! She says that she expects every woman of a desirable utility to serve as her follower. Where does she get off?
Yes, it is.
Trying to fight Aginor, despite the utter futility already being demonstrated, trying to interject herself into the fight against Rahvin, butting into Rand's and Aviendha's on-going issues.
Aginor, Rahvin.

Being capable of running a business or organizing a group of women does not make you fit for handling the level of business Aes Sedai deal with. If that were true, Egwene has no business every arguing with Nynaeve, over anything. Her excuses for bucking Nynaeve's superior decisions are that since they are not in Emond's Field, Nynaeve's official expertise no longer applies. And that is giving her the benefit of the doubt, and assuming she has given it that much thought. By her words and specific thoughts, she could be accused of assuming that because Nynaeve no longer holds the post of Wisdom, all the brains and skills and knowledge that made her good at the job, have gone out the window. But I will assume Egwene is not quite THAT dumb, regardless of what she tells Mesaana, and give her credit for the more complex and precise refutation of Nynaeve's qualifications for leadership. And those also apply. Note that while Elayne counts on Alise to keep the Kin in line when they need to take precautions against Careanne's depredations, she never asks her advice on politics or Aes Sedai matters. The Kin ARE woefully unqualified, and Nynaeve has already learned the drawbacks of encouraging their input, with their unwanted and ill-informed intrusions into her business or their limited perceptions of appropriate Aes Sedai behavior. There is definitely value to a ground-level viewpoint, but it has limitations as well. Either the sisters are going to retire into the Kin, for good and true, in which case, why bother? How is that different from how Vandene and Adealas lived in tGH? The operating assumption I am making is that they are still going to be functioning, only without the status of a sister. If they are not going to be put to pasture, and kept involved in Tower affairs, why should experts on Tower affairs, have to listen to people with no experience in such matters? For good or for ill, every single sister, including Egwene, Nynaeve and Elayne, has passed the Accepted test Reanne Corly lacked the balls to complete. But on matters of danger, they are going to have accept her command in perpetuity.

The problem with adopting the whole institution of the Kin as Phase 2 of an Aes Sedai career, is that they have another absurd and inflexible rank structure, which no longer serves any purpose. They needed rank and discipline because they were trying to hide from Aes Sedai, which is an activity that allows for no mistakes. If they no longer are in hiding, they no longer need discipline. But if they are going to get involved in active stuff, they need something better than mere seniority.

Egwene's entire character arc is spent bucking the very notion to which Nynaeve refers. But it's not going to be a problem for HER for a few centuries, she the Cadsuanes, Lelaines and Merises and the rest can suffer under the command of Reanne & Sumeko and their expertise running shops and inns, so Egwene can keep a tighter grip on the Tower with the Oaths.

So you can't deny that they are legitimate complaints, and yet Egwene ignores them to gain the benefits of power for herself.

And if she doesn't think of the Oaths are relevant to honesty, what about her thoughts with Turese?
Egwene really did need to get her hands on that Oath Rod. Lying started to seem far too convenient at times like this.

Which is a benefit they have not earned, nor do they deserve. They are the boy who cried wolf, but who never have to face the consequences for all their deceptions. It removes all their incentive to not engage in their double talk and lies of omission at other times. And Siuan herself admits that other people don't understand what the Oaths really entail.
I don't see how that's an objective good. I have never denied the advantages to the sisters.
You know it is not that simple. It lets them pull the wool over people's eyes, by the appearance of direct answers. If their practices were as harmless as you say, we would not even have a concept of lies of omission.
Perjury. I am talking about the point that regardless of the supernatural compulsions involved, every Aes Sedai has still made those promises, and should still be living according to them once the Oaths have been removed, but now they will no longer have the benefits of the Oaths. They still made promises, just as a soldier does upon enlisting or accepting a commission or warrant, just as an official does upon taking office or a witness does when testifying. They are not excused of the moral obligation to live up to them. They gave those promises with the expectation of retaining the benefits of the Oaths, which Egwene will be stripping from them, with their Aes Sedai status. It's the same as with Nynaeve and Elayne and the other two, with Egwene's comment about anyone refusing to swear the Oaths and calling herself Aes Sedai facing Tower justice. She means punishment, because there is no justice in applying ex post facto conditions. She never said they would have to swear when she raised them. If they had asked at the time, she'd probably have told them she intended to get rid of the Oaths if she could. Her changing the conditions under which they might retain their rank and status are as wrong as Elaida adding a fourth Oath or demoting Shemerin.

And it's the same for the retirees. Why shouldn't they walk away from everything if they want?

No, but that is the practical effect of forcing them to live as Kinswomen. She is doing the same thing to these hypothetical retirees that the Salidar sisters did when Siuan and Leane showed up unable to channel, but with their administrative and mental faculties undiminished. At least Siuan and Leane really did have SOME capacities diminished. A retiring Aes Sedai, especially if she is going to be in fit middle age, or revert to a younger state, is completely undiminished, but is going to have to accept being treated as less, for an arbitrary reason.
The Kinswomen are no more integrated than the Aes Sedai. At least you know where you stand with a sister. Kinswoman live a whole life of lies. Aes Sedai are at least permitted to marry and have children and involve themselves in the affairs of the world however they wish. Kinswomen are perpetually living under false identities and constrained in their lifestyles.
Like what? Not dying artificially? That's not a benefit, that's a God-given right!

Yes. Honesty is the best policy.

Not the Tower's problem. With no restrictions on channeling, it becomes even less so.
Oh, you mean the way absolutely no other culture in the world has, in the absence of the Oaths? There is no moral difference between the a'dam and the Oath Rod. The Seanchan enslave, but the Tower essentially tells people "Convert or die." The distinction between being forced to wear the a'dam or swear on the Oath Rod is the difference between being a pampered slave in a palace, or an abused field hand. Between being a high class courtesan or a "comfort woman" in a brothel. They are still the same thing, just with more comforts and illusions around one.
And they are going to have their affiliates running around without those checks. Do you have ANY mental flexibility, or any ability to think of the next logical step? What is the point of accepting restrictions, if you have henchmen who are equally capable, only unbound? The Kin are going to do the Tower's dirty work, while the Aes Sedai get to swan about claiming they don't do that sort of thing! And assuming they will NOT ask the Kin to do such things is arrant nonsense coming from the guy who thinks the restrictions are a good and necessary thing. If they will be able to resist the temptation to use the Kin for wetwork, they should be able to resist it themselves, and thus have no need of the Oaths.
And you don't see how that is a problem? It's a hair away from using the Oaths as a crutch, and assuming that there is no problem with doing anything they let you get away with. "What is not forbidden is allowed." Temptation is a fact of human nature. You have to deal with it. If you prevent it from being possible, you are simply ignoring it. The lack of channeling competition has rendered the Aes Sedai's channeling skills stagnant and moribund, because nothing challenges their assumptions. The Sea Folk show that they are colossally ignorant about the weather, and the Wise Ones demonstrate that things they think of as impossible, are merely difficult. It will be the same if they isolate themselves from free will. The Aes Sedai are so ruthless in their politics, and play such games with people's lives and livelihoods, because they have fallen into the trap of assuming that having sworn the Oaths, they have been made safe and can't hurt anyone who doesn't have it coming. They plainly only recognize physical harm, since they psychologically abuse & torture petty criminals. Just because the pickpockets and jaywalkers are not ACTUALLY having their limbs or skin removed in their experiences in the Chair of Remorse, does not mean the pain they suffer is not real. But because they are not physically harming anyone, they think nothing of committing such atrocities. Only someone hopelessly naive or obstinately compartmentalizing could think there is no connection.
If that's true, it's petty semantics, and idiocy, while ignoring the potentially more dangerous ramifications, of surrendering her conscience to the Oaths.
You're the one saying this is legitimate, that it is not dishonest, and that accepting these restrictions is a good thing.
And yet, she wants to use the Oaths as a crutch for honesty.
She DID take the Oath, by accepting the necessity and with her intention. Everyone in the world who takes and Oath and lives with it, does so without relying on the One Power to force them to live up to it! This is only hard under an absurd set of fantasy circumstances.
Then what is the point? Why would she care?
Which was before she came to the Tower. Then why does she do it?

That's the only reason to bother. Why else would the thought even occur to her? Either you are being honest or not. What is the point of wishing for something that will prevent you from a specific and limited variety of dishonesty? It's like putting a pillow down under your victim before raping her.
It doesn't. Hence my problem with her. And that whole statement was a straw man argument, fixating on the secrecy, as if there is something wrong with being secret from a political enemy, who has the power to arbitrarily order you punished.
Not in the least. I have never claimed the Oaths restrict them. You are the one saying they were necessary, and that people could trust them to fulfill their apparent function of limiting what the sisters can do.
Well, that's just fucking stupid. Once they start shooting, all bets are off. The Aes Sedai were under attack, they were not joining a fight between other parties, as the sisters accompanying Mat & Perrin do in KoD. The Shaido came looking for them, and attacked them. Absolutely nothing they did at Dumai's Wells violates the letter or spirit of the Third Oath. It WAS the last extreme by ANY sane definition, of defending their own lives, and those of their warders. On the other hand, Teslyn, Joline, Annoura, Seonid and Masuri did not NEED to be at those battles. Joline's suggestion that Mat owes her for participating especially gives the lie. If she really had no other choice, and was at the last extreme, Mat owes her nothing. If she got involved as a favor to him, it was not the last extreme. The Oath is bullshit, though Galina's group is not an example of this.
Because they are armed and trying to kill them. If they had turned and left upon encountering the wall, then shooting them in the back would be wrong. That they were trying to break down the wall, and that Aes Sedai need to sleep at some point, is all the justification they need for self defense.
That is not what the words of the Oath say. It might be the implicit intent, but then the implicit intent of the First Oath is that they can't lie, so it goes to show what that is worth. There is no need to specify "last extreme" if all they mean is to allow using the Power as a weapon to alleviate a condition of danger. Or is there anything wrong with the Oath saying so.

YOU'RE the one playing games. The rules of war have nothing to do with morality, they are a legal construction, mutually agreed upon. That question is, "Was what Egwene did morally correct, taking into account how the One Power changes both the options available to her, and the dangers she might face?" And the answer is, no. She was facing no additional danger from the Power which might mitigate her actions, such as might excuse a nonchanneler putting an arrow through a channeler by surprise, as Birgitte admitted she should have done to Moghedian. The women in question could not wield the Power, and their theoretical ability to do so was no greater than the possibility that an unarmed person might one day get his hands on a gun. One the other hand, Egwene had other options, since she could secure a non-channeler instantly with a flow of Air. She is implied to be stronger in Air than Fire (in her attempted lesson with Rand, where he notes how easy Fire is to use, and she thinks the same about Air & Water), so she deliberately did something more difficult. She chose to specifically kill unarmed women, while not doing anything about the armed men nearby, when their deaths could have been accepted as collateral damage, had they been killed by weaves aimed at the soldiers, or while they were still complete. If she has the luxury of taking the damane alive, she is under no pressures that compel or permit her to execute the sul'dam.
I thought Egwene might, which would be a refreshing change, since she seems to acknowledge no other morality beyond her wishes and convenience. But, okay, as long as you don't try to claim this in defense, I'll let her slide on the charge of hypocrisy. She's ONLY guilty of murder, not of trying to coerce people to refrain from violence, or punishing them for violence at the same time.

Not that I am changing my stance that she is wrong to retain the Oaths, I merely freely concede that they have nothing to do with right and wrong.

One more time, I was giving her the benefit of the doubt, attributing the possibility of mistaken morality. Fine. She doesn't give two shits about morality or honesty, and is only in support of the Oaths because it is another way in which her power is extended.
I have no problem with that. It was a CONCESSION to her possible good will. Why do you think I would have a problem with her embracing political benefits to herself for purely political reasons?

She needed to have ideals first. She never, ever, at any point expresses anything that could be construed as a true ideal. There is the occasional concept of which she disapproves, such as war in the abstract, but never to the extent of an ideal. She develops some ambitions and agendas once she has a chance at power among the Aes Sedai, but those are hardly grounded in anything that could be called an ideal, merely practical advantages.

The eternal excuse of the sell-out, the compromiser, the appeaser and the quisling.

No, they acquiesce to the Seanchan principle that channelers are too dangerous to run about unfettered.
Falme was in the autumn. By springtime, she's still looking for excuses to "put a lightning bolt through" someone Nynaeve has already taken alive. She is blasting away at non-channelers, with a real Aes Sedai present. And if she's still experiencing PTSD, her bitching out Nynaeve is even less justified, since she is clearly not capable of exercising proper judgment. And Siuan takes a hit too, for giving someone in that condition the promotion and authority she does.
Another way of looking at it, is that she is terrified, tried to use braggadocio to cover her fear, while choking at every emergent crisis she encountered right up until a simple-minded writer took over the series, and had her start reveling in opportunities to blast away with the Power as absolutely no one else feels, except Rand with his judgment distorted by Callandor & the taint. Although, come to think of it, the supposed flaw that comes out of nowhere to kill Egwene with Vora's sa'angreal, might have been responsible for her megalomania during the Seanchan raid.
I could not even bring myself to include that bullshit in Egwene's Evil.
Agreed. I thought something like that was coming. I thought her behavior toward Leilwin & Tuon appallingly infantile, even making allowances for dialogue.