All attachments, yes. But I am neither a Bodhisattva or fully enlightened. In addition, the core crisis I am experiencing is whether it is ok to watch a being suffer greatly in its torment by other beings without intervention. If the only act which may stop the other being from their act of torment is an act that results in their death (medicine to the afflicted), is it blameworthy?

There are definitely tiers to experience. I would expect that a rat can suffer far more significantly than a mite, or even a thousand mites.

Beyond that, your rat depends on you as a pet. I’m afraid that, if you can’t adequately look after your pets because of your beliefs, then you shouldn’t have pets.

The way I learned is that you try not to meddle unless you have wisdom (meaning you have some kind of enlightenment). My opinion is that unless I was the one tormenting other beings, I wouldn't meddle in other person's affairs, specially by killing. This is a good example on the importance of finding a teacher, a Good Knowing Advisor, someone that can dispel these doubts for you.

There's the obvious self-defense exceptions, if a lion or a person would attack me or my family I would shoot him, but an enlightened being may act differently because they may understand something we don't.

Any system of beliefs is going to have a few internal inconsistencies. Speaking from cheerful ignorance of what Buddhists actually believe, from my understanding the "don't kill things" is something in the nature of really good advice grafted on top of a philosophy that really an acknowledgement of impermanence and a set of guidelines around how to live with that. There is no sustainable belief system that stops its people from becoming soldiers.

If everything dies, at some level killing isn't such a sin. There are real practical populations if people use that as a serious philosophical starting point though.

My interpretation of the teaching is let love exist along with fear etc but don’t cling to love for fear it will pass and don’t cling to fear for fear it will not pass. He wasn’t telling people not to love but to allow it to exist without superimposing your neuroses on top of it.

That is exactly what stoicism is about.

I definitely recommend https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-Stoic-ebook/d....

Not a Buddhist, but I think it's the desire to attach to things which is the root of suffering, not that you can't love someone.

Attachment (upadana) which arises immediately from desire (tanha). "The desire, adherence, attraction, and attachment for these five grasping aggregates is the origin of suffering."

I agree and should have agreed differently that an absence of attachment does not mean an absence of love.