# Itachi didn't kill babies and children



## Tengu (Jun 21, 2012)

Ok, so i see this panel caused a lot of confusion:

When Danzou said that they have to kill everyone including the children who know nothing.
 I think it is pretty clear that Danzou is referring to Sasuke here, and it was all part of his strategy to get Itachi on their sides.
Even Hiruzen tells him not to say such things in front of Itachi, because it was personal to Itachi.
Later on Danzou makes Itachi a deal in which he offers a way for Sasuke to live.

So there you have it, i also think that Sasuke was the youngest member in the clan, Itachi being the second youngest, but that's just me.


----------



## socomberetta (Jun 21, 2012)

I dont know.

Out of the entire clan, Sasuke was the only child?  I find that hard to believe to be honest with you.


----------



## Orochibuto (Jun 21, 2012)

So basically you are trying to justify Itachi, nice try.


----------



## Tengu (Jun 21, 2012)

I am trying to clarify the situation, also Itachi did say that the Uchiha had became a small clan, so Sasuke being the only child isn't that farfetched.


----------



## Orochimaruwantsyourbody (Jun 21, 2012)

So the Uchiha clan was small enough to only have one kid during an 11 year time frame, yet strong enough to cause a civil war while Fugaku was their leader?


----------



## Tengu (Jun 21, 2012)

Well we didn't see other children besides Sasuke, also Sasuke was always trying to spend time with Itachi because he didn't have any other kids his age to be friends with, also if i remember correctly when Sasuke joined the academy, there were no other Uchiha kids there.
 And with members like Shisui and Itachi, yes the Uchiha were strong, plus we don't know how strong Fugaku was.


----------



## Tifa (Jun 21, 2012)

I remember from an early chapter or episode they said that Itachi killed them all even children and infants. Sasuke wasn't an infant. But I'm too lazy to find this chapter so I can't prove it.


----------



## EJ (Jun 21, 2012)

Quit trying to sugar coat the situation. 

If you look at how many people Itachi left dead in the streets, it is weird that you would think Sasuke was the only child. The Uchiha clan probably was not swimming with new children, but Sasuke definitely was not the only child alive in the clan.


----------



## BatoKusanagi (Jun 21, 2012)

Well, Danzo says _children_, therefore, more than one, therefore he couldn't be talking exclusively about Sasuke. Why would he anyways? It's not like he considered him to be special. More like leverage to "force" Itachi.


----------



## Tengu (Jun 21, 2012)

Flow said:


> Quit trying to sugar coat the situation.
> 
> If you look at how many people Itachi left dead in the streets, it is weird that you would think Sasuke was the only child. The Uchiha clan probably was not swimming with new children, but Sasuke definitely was not the only child alive in the clan.



Apparently all those people were adults, and as far as i know Sasuke was the only one who didn't knew about the coup, therefore he was the only child.


----------



## The World (Jun 21, 2012)

Tobi killed the children


----------



## EJ (Jun 21, 2012)

Tengu said:


> Apparently all those people were adults, and as far as i know Sasuke was the only one who didn't knew about the coup, therefore he was the only child.



What are you talking about?

Danzo specifically said "children". He would had singled Sasuke out if he was the only child. 

Sasuke wasn't the only child, it's really not that hard to grasp.


----------



## The World (Jun 21, 2012)

And Tobi still killed them


----------



## EJ (Jun 21, 2012)

^ They both are to blame until specifically stated by Tobi/Itachi/someone who was there that Tobi killed all of the children.

This is the problem with this section, people say things that haven't been implied. If Itachi would kill his own parents, how hard is it to accept the fact he killed children?


----------



## lathia (Jun 21, 2012)

Where was it shown that Tobi killed the children?


----------



## EJ (Jun 21, 2012)

*Denial, people still want to paint Itachi as a hero.


----------



## IpHr0z3nI (Jun 21, 2012)

Flow said:


> ^ They both are to blame until specifically stated by Tobi/Itachi/someone who was there that Tobi killed all of the children.
> 
> This is the problem with this section, people say things that haven't been implied. If Itachi would kill his own parents, how hard is it to accept the fact he killed children?



QFT....

The opening provides no valid counter arguments, it's essentially the same tired cliches which have been dis proven quite vividly by this chapter.

This only child seen was "Sasuke" logic is FLAWED. As the only woman among the Uchiha's showcased was Mikoto/Old hag... Does that mean there exist only two woman over the course of several decades?

Children........ is the plural pronunciation for child. Thus such a choice in vocabulary includes more than just the Sauce, in which judging for Danzo's later proposal may not have included him in that bunch.


----------



## The World (Jun 21, 2012)

Flow said:


> ^ They both are to blame until specifically stated by Tobi/Itachi/someone who was there that Tobi killed all of the children.
> 
> This is the problem with this section, people say things that haven't been implied. If Itachi would kill his own parents, how hard is it to accept the fact he killed children?





lathia said:


> Where was it shown that Tobi killed the children?




Itachi was bawling his eyes out killing his parents, if he had to kill all the children, he would never get the job done. 





Flow said:


> *Denial, people still want to paint Itachi as a hero.



You can't deny what's already fact


----------



## EJ (Jun 21, 2012)

And yet, he still killed them. Itachi was killing other children/toddlers since he was their age. 

It's amazing how people try to defend a genocidal freak.


----------



## Danzio (Jun 21, 2012)

Denial is not just  a river in Egypt.


----------



## lathia (Jun 21, 2012)

The World said:


> Itachi was bawling his eyes out killing his parents, if he had to kill all the children, he would never get the job done.



Considering that Itachi's blade was bloody before killing his parents, and that his parents were the last couple to be killed, I don't see how it's a fact that Tobi alone killed the children. Outstanding imagination though.


----------



## EJ (Jun 21, 2012)

"Hey! Itachi was a good person! He may had killed his parents, manipulated his brother, killed other clansmen. But kill CHILDREN!? That is just TOO much."


----------



## The World (Jun 21, 2012)

Maybe because he killed only the older members of the clan?

I know such a hard concept to grasp


----------



## EJ (Jun 21, 2012)

^ What makes you believe he didn't kill children?

I KNOW. You don't even have to answer. "Because that's plain immoral and evil"


----------



## The World (Jun 21, 2012)

Flow said:


> "Hey! Itachi was a good person! He may had killed his parents, manipulated his brother, killed other clansmen. But kill CHILDREN!? That is just TOO much."



Are you in idiot?

He's a soldier, a child at that too.

Soldiers, at least American's don't kill children. So yeah it is a bit too much if he went around stabbing babies.

This ain't WW2 Japan


----------



## lathia (Jun 21, 2012)

The World said:


> Maybe because he killed only the older members of the clan?
> 
> I know such a hard concept to grasp



So I ask again, where was it shown that Itachi only killed the "elder" and Tobi the "children."


----------



## The World (Jun 21, 2012)

It's there, go look through the chapters. I'll wait for your rebuttal on the day of never.


----------



## lathia (Jun 21, 2012)

The World said:


> It's there, go look through the chapters. I'll wait for your rebuttal on the day of never.



Not a chapter/panel exists, and mind you. I have a pretty decent memory when it comes to that. Let's be honest. You want to establish your fictitious idea as fact. For what purpose? I don't care. Just stop spewing garbage.


----------



## The World (Jun 21, 2012)

You don't care? Really? You keep replying. Mad are you? 

And I was just assuming, I never spewed it as fact.


----------



## lathia (Jun 21, 2012)

The World said:


> You don't care? Really? You keep replying. Mad are you?
> 
> And I was just assuming, I never spewed it as fact.



Just smacking shit when I see it. It's part of a lifestyle. You see how you went from "it's in the manga" to "assuming?" 

I like that. It shows you're able to accept your mistakes. Many of us don't.


----------



## The World (Jun 21, 2012)

It's in the manga? I don't believe those words ever came out my keyboard.


----------



## gabzilla (Jun 21, 2012)

Whatever makes you sleep at night


----------



## EJ (Jun 21, 2012)

The World said:


> Are you in idiot?
> 
> He's a soldier, a child at that too.



Apparently, you forgot the chapter where it was stated that Itachi has been killing since the age of three. I'm sure he wasn't the only chi-

OH WAIT

"NB4, Itachi didn't kill as a child! He was just a kid, he probably just walked around the battlefield! "



> Soldiers, at least American's don't kill children. So yeah it is a bit too much if he went around stabbing babies.



What the fuck are you- oh my god 

IT WAS A FUCKING GENOCIDE.

It is so apparent now that you can't accept the fact Itachi would kill a child, despite the fact that this is a ninja world, and toddlers being introduced to war was common in Itachi's day. How is it so hard to accept the fact that CHILDREN were killed by Itachi?

FFS



> This ain't WW2 Japan



oh lord. :rofl


----------



## 青月光 (Jun 21, 2012)

Until proven otherwise, Itachi did not kill any child.

Though we could assume there were more childs, Kishi would not make anyone kill children as part of a massacre.

He doesn?t even kill the Kage, moreover children.


----------



## AceBizzle (Jun 21, 2012)

Oh my...these young minds in the Telegrams have been killing me lately..... 

Which is more inhumane?

Killing your own parents

or

Killing a random toddler

Trick Question


----------



## EJ (Jun 21, 2012)

Legendary Uchiha said:


> Until proven otherwise, Itachi did not kill any child.
> 
> Though we could assume there were more childs, Kishi would not make anyone kill children as part of a massacre.
> 
> He doesn?t even kill the Kage, moreover children.



>Danzo says to kill the children


>Itachi and Tobi kill the Uchiha clan

>People on NF say "Itachi didn't kill children"

:rofl


----------



## ch1p (Jun 21, 2012)

What is the point of this thread?



Flow said:


> "Hey! Itachi was a good person! He may had killed his parents, manipulated his brother, killed other clansmen. But kill CHILDREN!? That is just TOO much."



This. 

Sometimes people aren't aware of the universe Naruto takes place in.


----------



## The World (Jun 21, 2012)

Flow said:


> Apparently, you forgot the chapter where it was stated that Itachi has been killing since the age of three. I'm sure he wasn't the only chi-
> 
> OH WAIT
> 
> ...



You done yet? 

Itachi is still a morally good character no matter what you say



Ch1p said:


> What is the point of this thread?



The OP is an attention whore duh


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Jun 21, 2012)

The World said:


> He's a soldier, a child at that too.
> 
> Soldiers, at least American's don't kill children. So yeah it is a bit too much if he went around stabbing babies.
> 
> This ain't WW2 Japan



Actually, it is a whole lot closer to WWII Japan than it is to the American army. Given you Itachi is you know... a ninja in a world where the ends justify any means.


----------



## EJ (Jun 21, 2012)

Itachi is a morally good person who helped kill other biju, killed his family, manipulate his brother.


----------



## Viper (Jun 21, 2012)

My ass, Bullshit! He killed them, otherwise we'd have seen them around in the village. Or Sasuke wouldn't be called the only survivor. Nice justification though.


----------



## DoflaMihawk (Jun 21, 2012)

Good point. 

Itachi isn't so bad after all.


----------



## EJ (Jun 21, 2012)

Lol no counter arguments have been made to justify what itachi has done.


----------



## Summers (Jun 21, 2012)

Yes he did, that is what was clear. Danzo said Children not Child, not the kid, not that boy, he said Children.


----------



## ifkisowning (Jun 21, 2012)

Itachi can even killed his own parents who cares for him all this time.
Why cant he killed random Uchiha children that he didn't see everyday?


----------



## EJ (Jun 21, 2012)

"cause itachi was a good person he wouldn't kill children! Oh jeasus thank bout the chilren! "


----------



## Tengu (Jun 21, 2012)

I see the haters came to troll my thread, no problem, and apparently some people don't know how to read, i didn't make this thread to say the Itachi is a good person or a bad person, that is not the point of this thread.

The point is simple, i think Itachi didn't kill babies or children.

Danzou used children instead of child or your simply call him by name, because he didn't want to make a direct threat to Sasuke, but an indirect one, Danzou wanted to transmit to Itachi that even his brother who didn't know about the coup wouldn't be spared.
It was part of his strategy to get Itachi on their side using Sasuke as trade, if Itachi chose to side with them, Sasuke would be spared.

About Sasuke being the youngest and the only child in Uchiha, Itachi said that the Uchiha clan was had become small so it isn't that farfetched. Also when we see flashbacks of kid Naruto we see him with other kids his age, when we see flashbacks of Sasuke we see him only hanging out with Itachi.
My last argument, Sasuke was the only Uchiha in the academy at that time:


It's just my opinion, you don't have to get all butthurt if you don't agree with me.


----------



## EJ (Jun 21, 2012)

So. Itachi made an indirect threat to itachi even though Sasuke was the only child....lol face it. Itachi slayed babies in their sleep.


----------



## Frawstbite (Jun 21, 2012)

The denial is so strong at this point I don't know what to say. 

Children is plural, he didn't say child.

A clan that hasn't grown, and only aged in about seven or so years cannot be a large threat. Especially when awakening the sharingan is not the most common thing in the world. This is Danzo we're talking about, that ruthless bastard certainly wasn't implying that Sasuke was the only child in the entire village. And, saying that we never saw any children holds no weight, because we never see any children from the ino/shika/cho clans. We've only seen one child byakugan user. So by default we are to assume that there are no children? Clans are supposed to grow to stay alive and relevant. The Uchiha didn't halt for seven years when it was clear that they wanted to be the most relevant.

Get over it man, Itachi had to do some dirty work. I don't see the problem, he knows his hands are dirty, why can't his fans grasp that concept? You're just letting the hardcore haters get to you. It's not that bad, he was given a mission and he took it. The extremely flawed shinobi world considers him to be a hero.

Itachi fans would make some terrible lawyers.


----------



## Jaime Lannister (Jun 21, 2012)

You honesty think that Fugaku and Mikoto were the only people in the entire clan who had kids?

The king is my favourite too, but come on now...


----------



## Schiffer (Jun 21, 2012)

He was given the option to kill his clan to save sasuke, are you assuming every single person in the clan was 30 something , that there wasn't any elderly or small children even infants. Even after that he was willing to let kisame kill Kakashi , Asuma and kurenai to keep up his cover. It's not like he was a saint he was willing to murder and let others die.


----------



## Tengu (Jun 21, 2012)

Need to bold it this time *the point of this thread is not if Itachi is a good guy or a bad guy*.
I said Itachi didn't killed children, because Sasuke was the youngest, Itachi being to second youngest.
Yeah, Sasuke was the only child in the clan at that time, that's what i believe, until the manga proves me wrong.


----------



## Frawstbite (Jun 21, 2012)

Tengu said:


> Need to bold it this time *the point of this thread is not if Itachi is a good guy or a bad guy*.
> I said Itachi didn't killed children, because Sasuke was the youngest, Itachi being to second youngest.
> Yeah, Sasuke was the only child in the clan at that time, that's what i believe, until the manga proves me wrong.



The plural children already proved you wrong. Unless I am missing something painfully obvious.


----------



## EJ (Jun 21, 2012)

Tengu said:


> I said Itachi didn't killed children, because Sasuke was the youngest, Itachi being to second youngest.



When was this said? When was this EVER implied?



> Yeah, Sasuke was the only child in the clan at that time, that's what i believe, until the manga proves me wrong.



Yeah, and there are invisible ponies that throw up rainbows. The manga hasn't proven me wrong, so it's fact and what I believe.


----------



## Tengu (Jun 21, 2012)

Flow said:


> When was this said? When was this EVER implied?



Well these panels kind of imply that Sasuke was the youngest:





Flow said:


> Yeah, and there are invisible ponies that throw up rainbows. The manga hasn't proven me wrong, so it's fact and what I believe.



Well seeing that Sasuke was never shown with other kids from the Uchiha clan, and was the only Uchiha kid in the academy at that time kinda implies it, but you believe what you want.


----------



## Frawstbite (Jun 21, 2012)

Tengu said:


> Well seeing that Sasuke was never shown with other kids from the Uchiha clan, and was the only Uchiha kid in the academy at that time kinda implies it, but you believe what you want.



False.

No ino/shika/chou/hyuuga were shown at the academy. 

So they don't exist by your logic.

The panels say he was too young, and nothing more. That doesn't mean that there weren't others in the same boat as Sasuke. The second set of panels is basically the same thing. Sasuke was the special kid because he was Itachi's brother. That doesn't automatically mean there were no other kids.


----------



## EJ (Jun 21, 2012)

Tengu said:


> Well these panels kind of imply that Sasuke was the youngest:




Itachi was biased towards his brother which is WHY he didn't want to kill him. In fact, these panels only give more of a reason to despise Itachi then to "see where he was coming from." 

Danzo specifically stated there were children in the Uchiha clan, and you think children = Sasuke? It's obvious that you are just in denial now. 




> Well seeing that Sasuke was never shown with other kids from the Uchiha clan, and was the only Uchiha kid in the academy at that time kinda implies it, but you believe what you want.



Oh, the same for Ino's clan, Shika's clan, and Chouji's clan. Same for the Hyuugas. I bet they only have three children. 

That's sarcasm btw.


----------



## Easley (Jun 21, 2012)

Actually, the less people Itachi killed - especially children - the higher the body count for Tobi. Go ahead, strangle those Uchiha babies. This guy should be a cruel murderous badass. Don't pussify him like Nagato.

Itachi is far from innocent though.


----------



## Kazuya Mishima (Jun 21, 2012)

Itachi pulled and Anakin Skywalker and killed the children...get over it.


----------



## fukkengan (Jun 21, 2012)

The World said:


> Soldiers, at least American's don't kill children.





[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLMCWRzS6GA[/YOUTUBE]






Tengu said:


> Well these panels kind of imply that Sasuke was the youngest:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 he started the academy one day after the massacre


----------



## Tengu (Jun 21, 2012)

Frawstbite said:


> False.
> 
> No ino/shika/chou/hyuuga were shown at the academy.
> 
> ...



We already know about Shikamaru, Kiba, Hinata and the other genins. 


We'll just have to wait for Kishi to confirm it in the next datadook.


----------



## Frawstbite (Jun 21, 2012)

Tengu said:


> We already know about Shikamaru, Kiba, Hinata and the other genins.



What?

I'm saying that by your logic young ino/shika/chou members don't exist because we don't see them. I'm not talking about Shikamaru, Hinata, or Chouji I'm saying that is a silly assumption to make. What does Kiba have to do with anything at all?

So, why do you assume that there were no young Uchiha but assume that there were some young Nara, Yamanaka, Akimichi clan members? Is there even a legitimate reason?



> We'll just have to wait for Kishi to confirm it in the next datadook.



No, everyone aside from hardcore Itachi fans already have confirmation. Hell, we knew back when it was first revealed in part one.

I'm not here to convince you, so I guess all we can do is wait to get it in writing, a second time.


----------



## takL (Jun 21, 2012)

Op im not sure of itachi was the second youngest seeing as how itachi was several yrs older than sasuke.  but i agree the other points. Itachi's already said to sasuke that sasuke was excepted form the killing because he was too little and innocent then.


----------



## EJ (Jun 21, 2012)

Lol, how can you even argue with someone that disregards basic facts.


----------



## T-Bag (Jun 21, 2012)

children = more than 1 kid

....... you're saying sasuke was the only young kid in the uchiha clan? 

itachi killed kids too because they are POTENTIAL enemies of konoha, plus its a ninja world (cold) out there. why's it so hard to accept what he did?

sasuke survived because itachi had much love for him


----------



## EJ (Jun 21, 2012)

Yes, that is exactly what the op is saying.


----------



## Tengu (Jun 21, 2012)

I'm not having problems with Itachi killing other children, but i think Itachi didn't kill other children, because they didn't exist in the first place.

But i guess people don't know how to read, i said several times already, this thread is not about Itachi being good or bad for killing children.
The point of this thread was to show that Sasuke was the only child in the clan at that time.


----------



## EJ (Jun 21, 2012)

Yes, even though Danzo specifically said children. Sasuke was not the only child. :Giogio


----------



## sinjin long (Jun 21, 2012)

perhaps there were other children but sasuke just happened to be the youngest?

or there were younger children and babies ans itachi and tobi killed them.

perhaps that was the price itachi paid to spare sasuke.

and if indeed that was the price of sasuke's life i have absolutely no doubt that itachi would kill children and babies if it meant sasuke was to live.


----------



## Arthas (Jun 21, 2012)

Tengu said:


> I see the haters came to troll my thread, no problem, and apparently some people don't know how to read, i didn't make this thread to say the Itachi is a good person or a bad person, that is not the point of this thread.
> 
> The point is simple, i think Itachi didn't kill babies or children.



The response is simple: Most people think you are wrong. 



> Danzou used children instead of child or your simply call him by name, because he didn't want to make a direct threat to Sasuke, but an indirect one, Danzou wanted to transmit to Itachi that even his brother who didn't know about the coup wouldn't be spared.
> It was part of his strategy to get Itachi on their side using Sasuke as trade, if Itachi chose to side with them, Sasuke would be spared.



Strangley enough that threat would still be be indirectly made (actually it would be much more indirect) if they were actually more children instead of only one.



> About Sasuke being the youngest and the only child in Uchiha, Itachi said that the Uchiha clan was had become small so it isn't that farfetched. Also when we see flashbacks of kid Naruto we see him with other kids his age, when we see flashbacks of Sasuke we see him only hanging out with Itachi.



There's a difference between small and microscopic. Second Sasuke's story has always been about Itachi. Why would Kishi show him playing around with other kids? Not to mention Sasuke was Itachi-obsessed at that age as well. 




> My last argument, Sasuke was the only Uchiha in the academy at that time:



Keep in mind what they said: That's "an" Uchiha. Not that Sasuke was the only Uchiha in the class or even the whole year or the whole academy for that matter.



Tengu said:


> Well these panels kind of imply that Sasuke was the youngest:



Madara says: 

*"Though you were part of the Uchiha, you were kept in the Dark. You were too young."*

Where does it say that Sasuke was the only young Uchiha? Where does it say that other childeren were not kept in the dark as well. Keeping academy students and pre-academy students out of planning a coup against your villages seems like a good idea to me.



Did you read what Sasuke asked? "Why was I different from Mother and Father?"  

He was different from his parents because Sasuke was a kid and not involved in the Coup. Neither Sasuke nor Itachi implied that Sasuke was the only child.  



> Well seeing that Sasuke was never shown with other kids from the Uchiha clan, and was the only Uchiha kid in the academy at that time kinda implies it, but you believe what you want.



Already responded to this earlier.


----------



## Bloo (Jun 21, 2012)

Who cares if he killed kids or not, any left alive would grow up like Sasuke and want to destroy the village, and with the Uchiha bloodline that could be possible.


----------



## UltimateDeadpool (Jun 21, 2012)

Itachi _did_ kill babies and children.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Jun 21, 2012)

What does it matter if he did or did not?


----------



## Orochimaruwantsyourbody (Jun 21, 2012)

Bloo said:


> Who cares if he killed kids or not, any left alive would grow up like Sasuke and want to destroy the village, and with the Uchiha bloodline that could be possible.



Yes, because every single one of them would have grown up to have been a bloodlusted EMS user.


----------



## EJ (Jun 21, 2012)

That's not the point of the op. He killed babies. As long as the op understands.


----------



## Frawstbite (Jun 21, 2012)

First Tsurugi said:


> What does it matter if he did or did not?



I'm thinking they really just want to comfortably call him a good guy. Other than that I don't see why it matters either.


----------



## ? (Jun 21, 2012)

Children is plural.

/ thread.


----------



## Almondsand (Jun 21, 2012)

I'm glad Itachi murked everyone and everything, including the children who knew nothing. Danzo ultimatum wasn't definitive for Itachi because Itachi could had avoided making a choice. The person who primarily influenced Itachi to do what he done was Shisui. Danzo and the elders really could had been minced meat if Itachi chose to do so. Danzo had to play on Itachi's love for the village and his younger brother Sasuke. Itachi killed everyone else besides him, even the children because he knew all of Sasuke hatred will be directed towards him and not the village.


----------



## DeK3iDE (Jun 21, 2012)

the OP just defeated the entire purpose of their post. The fact that Danzo said "children", as in more than 1, meant Sasuke was obviously not the only Uchiha kid in the whole clan at that time. This just makes him even more of an animal as far as i'm concerned, and anyone else who still wants to see this guy as some sort of hero even more hypocritical who tries to demonize Sasuke for aiming to pay Konoha back


----------



## Algol (Jun 21, 2012)

OP, you're thread title and your post don't match

i agree with you that maybe danzo saying that in front of itachi was to soften him up to make a deal to save sasuke, but that has nothing to do with who actually killed the children and babies once the massacre started


----------



## shibunari (Jun 21, 2012)

What's the problem with killing children, babies, elderly, if you are the ANBU's Captain  (literally Assassination Tactics Special Force)  in a S-Rank mission, for the sake of your own village?.

if the  children, babies, elderly were from another village it was ok?
One can be a  war hero for a village and can be at the same time an cruel assassin to another village.

I really don't get the problem...


----------



## Kage (Jun 21, 2012)

i should have known this chapter would not be enough to convince everyone that not only were sasuke and itachi *not* the only freakin children in the uchiha clan (lol wat) but that itachi was indeed slaughtering babies. 

if it makes you feel better if kishi could he'd probably draw itachi slaughtering these children while crying as the children understand perfectly that Itachi needs to kill them and they don't blame him for anything


----------



## boohead (Jun 22, 2012)

Oh itachifans, what will you come up with next


----------



## Noctivagus (Jun 22, 2012)

My problem is that if Itachi really is a baby-murdering monster, then why does the manga keep trying to frame him as some tragic but deeply moral hero? It's one thing to kill your parents and adult co-conspirators when they're responsible for a coup that'll lead to a huge civil war and potentially destroy your village, but, I'm sorry, you murder innocent infants and I don't care how much you love your little brother, there is something seriously fucking wrong with you.  And I don't have a problem with Itachi being an awful human being, I like him anyway, except every panel of the manga keeps acting like he's a best and kindest thing since Jesus.  It's ridiculous.


----------



## Revolution (Jun 22, 2012)

Just because it was off panel fans can assume anyone killed or didn't kill the children.


----------



## mareboro (Jun 22, 2012)

socomberetta said:


> I dont know.
> 
> Out of the entire clan, Sasuke was the only child?  I find that hard to believe to be honest with you.


its not easy having kids when your only partner is from the same family as you. 
I'm always surprised that Uchihas weren't physically deformed freaks, guess all the breeding errors presented on the inside.


----------



## DragonOfChoas (Jun 22, 2012)

Noctivagus said:


> My problem is that if Itachi really is a baby-murdering monster, then why does the manga keep trying to frame him as some tragic but deeply moral hero? It's one thing to kill your parents and adult co-conspirators when they're responsible for a coup that'll lead to a huge civil war and potentially destroy your village, but, I'm sorry, you murder innocent infants and I don't care how much you love your little brother, there is something seriously fucking wrong with you.  And I don't have a problem with Itachi being an awful human being, I like him anyway, except every panel of the manga keeps acting like he's a best and kindest thing since Jesus.  It's ridiculous.



Because every other "Hero" in this manga didn't kill enormous amount of people and yet the manga still portrays them like that. Like Minato, Tsunade, J-man and so on. 
Funny how nobody has a problem with that. 
Itachi acted just like them, he killed the enemies of the leaf just like all the rest of them, but he is for some reason he is more fucked up then them... 
Talk about double standard.


----------



## Kage (Jun 22, 2012)

DragonOfChoas said:


> Because every other "Hero" in this manga didn't kill enormous amount of people and yet the manga still portrays them like that. Like Minato, Tsunade, J-man and so on.
> Funny how nobody has a problem with that.
> Itachi acted just like them, he killed the enemies of the leaf just like all the rest of them, but he is for some reason he is more fucked up then them...
> Talk about double standard.



he tortured his little brother. *twice.* out of "love"
hate to break this to you but _that's fucked up._


----------



## Don-kun (Jun 22, 2012)

DragonOfChoas said:


> Because every other "Hero" in this manga didn't kill enormous amount of people and yet the manga still portrays them like that. Like Minato, Tsunade, J-man and so on.
> Funny how nobody has a problem with that.
> Itachi acted just like them, he killed the enemies of the leaf just like all the rest of them, but he is for some reason he is more fucked up then them...
> Talk about double standard.



This is a very weak excuse, The three Sanin didn't went to someone village to slaughter kids, they went to a person country to wipe out the Man that was oppressing his people and in that event they see what happen to Kona, Nagato and Yahiko but we see what Jiraiya did about it? 
Minato didn't went to another person village to slaughter kids, they came to him. Other moments when Minato was involved in childs death, was because of Tobi with the Nine Tails. So there is the reason why no one ever implies that, because the story never gave us that impression.

Many people have already learned to accept that fact and still love Itachi, there is even people that likes Orochimaru, Danzou, Kabuto, Pain/Nagato etc. People love a character for who they are not what they want to imagine they are.


----------



## Sniffers (Jun 22, 2012)

You know, the war would've killed many more innocent people. Heck, one only needs to recall the fallout from the Sannin vs Hanzo. What's worse? Besides, assuming the clan was only about 10 households big then Sasuke could've easily been the only innocent child anyway. (In Naruverse children of 8+ are already soldiers (in training). That's just how fucked up that world is.)


----------



## Don-kun (Jun 22, 2012)

Again there are people that likes Orochimaru, Danzou, Kabuto, Pain/Nagato etc. They did the same. Itachi was a very interested character, he did mistake and he accepted them, that alone is honorable.

No need to drag other character when the story never imply they slaughter kids.

The fact that he helps stoping a man with enough power to wipe out the Naruto Universe and with his dying breath try to make amen for the thing he did is just a plus.


----------



## Kage (Jun 22, 2012)

oh and i forgot to mention he also joined a criminal organization and carried out missions for said organization like he wasn't just sekreetly a gud gai the whole time.


----------



## Gabe (Jun 22, 2012)

doubt sasuke was the only kids


----------



## DragonOfChoas (Jun 22, 2012)

Kage said:


> he tortured his little brother. *twice.* out of "love"
> hate to break this to you but _that's fucked up._



Never denied that he was fucked up, but that wasn't what I was referring to.
I was talking about how Itachi was considered fucked up and can't be called "hero" because he killed his clan, while every other "hero" in the manga probably killed even more.  



DONJOSEPH19 said:


> This is a very weak excuse, The three Sanin didn't went to someone village to slaughter kids, they went to a person country to wipe out the Man that was oppressing his people and in that event they see what happen to Kona, Nagato and Yahiko but we see what Jiraiya did about it?
> Minato didn't went to another person village to slaughter kids, they came to him. Other moments when Minato was involved in childs death, was because of Tobi with the Nine Tails. So there is the reason why no one ever implies that, because the story never gave us that impression.
> 
> Many people have already learned to accept that fact and still love Itachi, there is even people that likes Orochimaru, Danzou, Kabuto, Pain/Nagato etc. People love a character for who they are not what they want to imagine they are.



You are talking like Itachi jumped with joy with the prospect and was the one who suggested the idea. He forced to do so by his superiors. Moreover it was his freaking job to do what they say.
Both the Sannin, Itachi and Minato did what they did for the village, they all killed and destroyed for it, but somehow only Itachi seems to take flake for what he did.


----------



## Nidaime Mizukage (Jun 22, 2012)

Flow said:


> *Denial, people still want to paint Itachi as a hero.



There are no heroes in this series... only ninjas.


----------



## Don-kun (Jun 22, 2012)

DragonOfChoas said:


> Never denied that he was fucked up, but that wasn't what I was referring to.
> I was talking about how Itachi was considered fucked up and can't be called "hero" because he killed his clan, while every other "hero" in the manga probably killed even more.
> 
> 
> ...





DONJOSEPH19 said:


> Again there are people that likes Orochimaru, Danzou, Kabuto, Pain/Nagato etc. They did the same. Itachi was a very interested character, he did mistake and he accepted them, that alone is honorable.
> 
> No need to drag other character when the story never imply they slaughter kids.
> 
> The fact that he helps stoping a man with enough power to wipe out the Naruto Universe and with his dying breath try to make amen for the thing he did is just a plus.



I just so you to know, I don't hate Itachi, from the start I see him as a badass caracter with a lot of dept. The problem is that I don't deny or try to, what is obvious to the readers and worse I don't blame characters like the Sannin or Minato that the story has never implied that they were forced to kill kids.

Naruto is my favorite character and I really believe that he has a lot of flaws. I don't try to justify them I accept them and hope that he improves his jugement and his immatureness.


----------



## takL (Jun 22, 2012)

whatever. apparently there wasnt a baby younger than sasuke in uchiha. even danzo wouldn't worry about infants before their memories.

plus itachi had the masked one do the job. we don't know how much but my impression after reading the chap is that itachi only killed his dear parents.


----------



## takL (Jun 22, 2012)

T-Bag said:


> children = more than 1 kid




yea? and danzo in the raw doesnt say "child_ren_."


----------



## shibunari (Jun 22, 2012)

I will ask again.

                                          What's the problem with killing  children, babies, elderly, if you are the ANBU's *Captain*  (literally  *Assassination Tactics Special **Squad*)  in a S-Rank mission, for the sake  of your own village?.

if the  children, babies, elderly were from another village it was ok?

One can be a * war hero f*or a village and can be at the same time an *cruel assassin* to another village.

this is so stupid ??

Uchiha clan and the leaf were not the happy people of the fire country!
they are all ninjas...and their job is fighting and if need kill/die for the country sake!

they are ninjas, they are tools, ninjas are assassins!


----------



## Akaikumo (Jun 22, 2012)

Yes, he probably killed children, so what?
It was his job, he was a ninja and killing is exactly what a ninja do


----------



## Draffut (Jun 22, 2012)

Tengu said:


> Well these panels kind of imply that Sasuke was the youngest:



Ok, I've read through both of those pages, and nowhere did it say or imply that he was the only child.



> Well seeing that Sasuke was never shown with other kids from the Uchiha clan, and was the only Uchiha kid in the academy at that time kinda implies it, but you believe what you want.



How many others of Shikamaru or Ino or Shino's clan have been shown to be around the same age?  almost none, and they are still alive.  That doesn't mean none of them exist.  Does Konoha have like mating cycles "Ok, you have 1 day to fuck every 5 years, if you don't get pregnant that day no other children will be permitted!"  Just becuase Kishi doesn't draw every single person in the narutoverse in every chapter doesn't mean anything.


----------



## T-Bag (Jun 22, 2012)

takL said:


> yea? and danzo in the raw doesnt say "child_ren_."



so what does he say?


----------



## Draffut (Jun 22, 2012)

Tengu said:


> I'm not having problems with Itachi killing other children, but i think Itachi didn't kill other children, because they didn't exist in the first place.
> 
> But i guess people don't know how to read, i said several times already, this thread is not about Itachi being good or bad for killing children.
> The point of this thread was to show that Sasuke was the only child in the clan at that time.



Except the manga specifically says "children" and you are the one who is tryign to jump through hoops to try and make that mean only one child, becuase "danzou didn't want to offend Itachi" which is laughable at best.

Everyone else here can read well enough, you are the one who needs to work on his comprehension skills.


----------



## principito (Jun 22, 2012)

Tengu said:


> I am trying to clarify the situation, also Itachi did say that the Uchiha had became a small clan, so Sasuke being the only child isn't that farfetched.



This thread is epicly stupid and this post in particular just made my day hahaha

he did kill babies and women and everybody.... but apparently danzo and hiruzen knew that... and they agreed


----------



## shibunari (Jun 22, 2012)

T-Bag said:


> so what does he say?





何も知らぬ子供も含めてな
Nani mo shiranu kodomo mo fukumete na.
it's +/-
including the child/children who knows nothing.

noun

子供 (hiragana こども, romaji kodomo)
1.    a child; children


----------



## takL (Jun 22, 2012)

shibunari said:


> 何も知らぬ子供も含めてな
> Nani mo shiranu kodomo mo fukumete na.
> it's +/-
> including the child/children who knows nothing.
> ...



plural 子供たち　(kodomotachi)
=chirldren 

which danzo doesn't say there.


----------



## T-Bag (Jun 22, 2012)

so doe she say "child" specifically? cuz im not quite getting it


----------



## Almondsand (Jun 22, 2012)

They right it does say Kodomo which is child in japanese, the Kanji and Hiragana does say it. I mean japanese can be subtle in what it means though and English is much more direct than Japanese, so I mean it can be children as well. Usually in common language Japanese use short forms more likely than the long forms of words, so in casual conversation Kodomo will be used than Kodomo-tachi.. (Been taking Japanese for three years)


----------



## shibunari (Jun 22, 2012)

takL said:


> plural 子供たち　(kodomotachi)
> =chirldren
> 
> which danzo doesn't say there.



子供 can be more than one.
たち isn't always necessary.

I think it was purposely ambiguous.


----------



## T-Bag (Jun 22, 2012)

its just hard to believe he was the only child in the entire clan. but then again right after that it does seem like danzo was referring to sasuke, which hiruzen had to reply and say "dont say things like that in front of itachi"


----------



## takL (Jun 22, 2012)

shibunari said:


> 子供 can be more than one.
> たち isn't always necessary.
> 
> I think it was purposely ambiguous.



in front of hiruzen.

altho u can mean children by 子供, if u really wanna mean more than one child u say 子供たち.



T-Bag said:


> but then again right after that it does seem like danzo was referring to sasuke, which hiruzen had to reply and say "dont say things like that in front of itachi"



yep i think thats about it.

the birthrate is droppping in Japan as well.


----------



## shibunari (Jun 22, 2012)

T-Bag said:


> so doe she say "child" specifically? cuz im not quite getting it



*子供 *now is used for '*child*' or '*children*, with the plural often being *子供**たち*

*たち isn't* *always necessary.
* 
I think it was purposely ambiguous.



takL said:


> in front of hiruzen.
> 
> altho u can mean children by 子供, if u really wanna mean more than one child u say 子供たち.



Danzo don't give a darn to Hiruzen!
I can't picture Danzo saying 'kodomo-tachi'


----------



## takL (Jun 22, 2012)

shibunari said:


> *子供 *now is used for '*child*' or '*children*, with the plural often being *子供**たち*
> 
> *たち isn't* *always necessary.
> *
> ...



couldbe he says kodomora which means children as well. 

if he didnt give a darn about hiruzen why should he talk with itachi in private?


----------



## shibunari (Jun 22, 2012)

takL said:


> couldbe he says kodomora which means children as well.
> 
> if he didnt give a darn about hiruzen why should he talk with itachi in private?



to avoid unnecessary complaints and discussion with Hiruzen being sentimenal.

but it's really matter? kill child or an adult to me is the same thing,
a irreplaceable life.

But someone had to do the job and he was chosen to do this,a terrifying job,  but his mission.

he dealt with his pain alone and in silent for years,
he was a great and very brave shinobi!


----------



## takL (Jun 22, 2012)

i've never said itachi never killed any children cos i really dont know. plus itachi himslef was a child then. but the chap does imply that saske was the youngest kid in the clan.


----------



## shibunari (Jun 22, 2012)

takL said:


> i've never said itachi never killed any children cos i really dont know. plus itachi himslef was a child then. but the chap does imply that saske was the youngest kid in the clan.



I think like in any other language, the reader can have your own understanding...so there is no point in discuss it, to me it was purposely an ambiguous statement.

if to you the chap. suggests that sasuke is the youngest..it is exactly that only a suggestion, not a clear statement.

I think it is up to us readers  have your own view on this.


----------



## T-Bag (Jun 22, 2012)

its not ambiguous. its either he meant singular or plural. but the ppl who read japanese should read the entire context of that page and figure it out


----------



## shibunari (Jun 22, 2012)

T-Bag said:


> its not ambiguous. its either he meant singular or plural. but the ppl who read japanese should read the entire context of that page and figure it out



*子供 * can be singular or plural.
*子供**たち* only plural.

he as talk about a clan..
so it can be singular or plural..so yes it is ambiguous.


----------



## T-Bag (Jun 22, 2012)

okay then since the second one "子供たち" wasn't used which is ONLY plural, then danzo meant singular, in this case sasuke. which explains why hiruzen told danzo dont say such a thing in front of itachi. and if i remember correctly itachi said he let sasuke live because he was innocent/didn't know anything

that's all there is to it, wasnt hard


----------



## shibunari (Jun 22, 2012)

T-Bag said:


> okay then since the second one "子供たち" wasn't used which is ONLY plural, then danzo meant singular, in this case sasuke. which explains why hiruzen told danzo dont say such a thing in front of itachi. and if i remember correctly itachi said he let sasuke live because he was innocent/didn't know anything
> 
> that's all there is to it, wasnt hard



the plural in the past was "子供" ... 
"たち" is a new thing.

I Can't picture Danzo saying "子供たち" 
but I really don't care...so I'll not discuss this anymore.
I'm out of this thread.


----------



## tupadre97 (Jun 22, 2012)

It could have been him or Tobi but we don't really no bcuz that flashback didnt really show anything.


----------



## Hiko Seijurou (Jun 22, 2012)

You are absolutely right, OP. It _is_ possible that Sasuke was the only child in the clan, and Danzou was clearly referring to Itachi's brother.

Besides, if there had been others, who is to say which knew what? Danzou was not exactly the best candidate to join the Child Protection services.


----------



## takL (Jun 23, 2012)

shibunari said:


> if to you the chap. suggests that sasuke is the youngest..it is exactly that only a suggestion, not a clear statement.
> 
> I think it is up to us readers  have your own view on this.



yea but the chap does suggest sasuke was the only innocent child there.
danzo didnt say "including babies". 
his argument was that even an innocent child would hold grudge against konoha if they saw konoha shinobis killing their parents. if they saw itachi/a member of uchiha doing that, they wouldnt hate konoha.

and since itachi and tobi executed it there was no proper reason to despose of any innocent children anymore.

the fact that only sasuke survived is telling.


----------



## MihaiJ (Jun 23, 2012)

There were no other children! If there had been, then they would have been spared! All the other members of the clan knew about the coup and were willing to help!


----------



## Turrin (Jun 24, 2012)

It says children which is plural, so yes this chapter does confirm Itachi killed children or at least aided in their deaths by having Tobi kill them.


----------



## erivar (Jun 24, 2012)

Tengu said:


> Ok, so i see this panel caused a lot of confusion:
> 
> When Danzou said that they have to kill everyone including the children who know nothing.
> I think it is pretty clear that Danzou is referring to Sasuke here, and it was all part of his strategy to get Itachi on their sides.
> ...



Does it matter? Murder is murder. Genocide is genocide. Even if he didn't kill any children; it doesn't change the fact of what he did. He helped Konoha betray his clan and murder an entire group of people. Plus, all the shit he put Sasuke through who was a child(the mind-fucks and torture) makes that point moot as that was atrocious.

I don't understand why there is a need to defend him. He isn't a saint and was never portrayed that way. He is only a hero to people like Danzou and to Konoha seeing as they owe him their peace and happiness thanks to the war that never happened due to the death of the Uchihas. What he did was not heroic and was merely the lesser evil in the scheme of things and that was the way he saw it and the way it was portrayed. 

He made a difficult choice even one as fucked up as murdering his entire clan in exchange of saving his little brother's life and protecting Konoha. 

I like Itachi just fine without trying to justify any of his actions. I like him even more because of all the crap he did. He got a second chance to rectify some of the mistakes he made, namely mind-fucking with his brother. It was a start, but at least, he got to die trying to fix that one thing he still had the chance to do.


----------



## Jeαnne (Jun 24, 2012)

look at it this way, what age to you think that itachi's lover was? anything over 18 makes her a p*d*p****, anything under makes itachi at least a teen murder


----------



## takL (Jun 24, 2012)

Turrin said:


> It says children which is plural,



nope it doesnt in tha raw.

izanami!


shibunari said:


> 何も知らぬ子供も含めてな
> Nani mo shiranu kodomo mo fukumete na.
> it's +/-
> including the child/children who knows nothing.
> ...





takL said:


> plural 子供たち　(kodomotachi)
> =chirldren
> 
> which danzo doesn't say there.


----------



## Mr. 0 (Jun 24, 2012)

It could have been Tobi that killed the kids. I don't know if it makes Itachi look any better if he said to Tobi "hey look, I don't have the stomach to kill the kids so how about you do it", but it's a possibility.


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 24, 2012)

I dunno guys, we haven't really seen the specifics of who killed who except for Sasuke's parents.

I think Tobi killed most of the clan using that transporting eye of his.


----------



## Missing_Nin (Jun 24, 2012)

wtf of course he's a child killer.


----------



## Grendel (Jun 24, 2012)

I wonder why everyone that says he killed children(and I always thought he did) is ignoring what Takl is saying (he's actually the second person I have seen that brought up the singular/plural issue and word used in the raw)....if the chapter doesn't specifically say the plural then why sit and bash the OP...

I never really believed that Sasuke was the only kid in the clan cause that didn't make sense but Takl speaks Japanese and I don't so I  (and I think the rest that don't) should at least take into consideration what he is saying about the word used in the raw...


----------



## Nikushimi (Jun 24, 2012)

Have to agree with the OP; Danzou's comment is not evidence of any children in the clan besides Sasuke. The way it was translated may seem like that's what he's implying, but that isn't necessarily the case.

For that matter, Tobi already told us exactly who Itachi killed (his parents, his superiors, his friends, and his lover), and any Uchiha children are conspicuously absent from ALL of the panels we have seen of the slain Uchiha clan.

But haters will continue to hate, even in the absence of evidence and even still when confronted with a rational alternative to their stubborn assumptions.


EDIT: Have to give my thanks to TakL for confirming my suspicion; in the original Japanese, Danzou's statement *does not* imply that there were other children besides Sasuke.


----------



## Kage (Jun 24, 2012)

it's hilarious how Itachi fans act like it matters either way.

like this would do jack shit to sully the reputation of their "hero" in their eyes so the jumping to defend his "honor" is kind of ironic.



erivar said:


> Does it matter? Murder is murder. Genocide is genocide. Even if he didn't kill any children; it doesn't change the fact of what he did. He helped Konoha betray his clan and murder an entire group of people. Plus, all the shit he put Sasuke through who was a child(the mind-fucks and torture) makes that point moot as that was atrocious.



ah. at least some get it.


----------



## GKY (Jun 24, 2012)

Why do people try to find info that clearly isn't there. Itachi is just a fictional character, you don't have to defend every character flaw (same could be said for many other fandoms). On that note, Itachi killed children, but isn't really that high on the list compared to Zabuza, Orochimaru, Nagato, etc..


----------



## boohead (Jun 24, 2012)

Nikushimi said:


> Have to agree with the OP; Danzou's comment is not evidence of any children in the clan besides Sasuke.  .





Even Itachi facepalms at you guys


----------



## Turrin (Jun 24, 2012)

takL said:


> nope it doesnt in tha raw.
> 
> izanami!



So it can mean Child or Children is what I'm getting from this? In which case it was probably left ambiguous on purpose.


----------



## Sniffers (Jun 24, 2012)

Sasuke was kept alive exactly because he was innocent. Itachi also had other plans for him, but Sasuke being innocent was the first mentioned and primary reason he was spared. The current chapter doesn't even use a plural for "_innocent children_" in the original Japanese either.

Call it bad writing, a cheap cop-out, whatever, but the manga rather clearly says that Itachi simply didn't kill innocent Uchiha children. I never understood why people thought there _had_ to be any more children anyway. We have no clue how big the clan was in the first place, so the assumption never had much ground anyway. (Maybe I missed something?)


----------



## Evil (Jun 24, 2012)

Grendel said:


> I wonder why everyone that says he killed children(and I always thought he did) is ignoring what Takl is saying (he's actually the second person I have seen that brought up the singular/plural issue and word used in the raw)....if the chapter doesn't specifically say the plural then why sit and bash the OP...
> 
> I never really believed that Sasuke was the only kid in the clan cause that didn't make sense but Takl speaks Japanese and I don't so I  (and I think the rest that don't) should at least take into consideration what he is saying about the word used in the raw...



It's because 子供 is used in both the singular and plural, it means both child/children and is used that way. 

However, given the context of the chapter, I agree with takL. Danzou seems to be threatening or imposing on Itachi the gravity of their current situation. This is enforced by the fact that Hiruzen explicitly states not saying something like that infront of Itachi, which makes me believe that Danzou is talking about Sasuke.


----------



## IpHr0z3nI (Jun 24, 2012)

Evil said:


> It's because 子供 is used in both the singular and plural, it means both child/children and is used that way.
> 
> However, given the context of the chapter, I agree with takL. Danzou seems to be threatening or imposing on Itachi the gravity of their current situation. This is enforced by the fact that Hiruzen explicitly states not saying something like that infront of Itachi, which makes me believe that Danzou is talking about Sasuke.



I understand the ambiguity of the text, but if it's ambiguous.... Why has "All other translators" opted to employ the plural definition? 

The "Child" referring to Sasuke doesn't make sense....... given "Sasuke" has a name....

From a context stand point the "Plural" definition makes sense... As the conversation between the Danzo/elders and Sarutobi was holding consultation in about "The UCHIHA CLAN".....

The entire page speaks on "Generality" opposed to singular thus is why "A child" substituted in doesn't make sense.


However I do agree with your notion regarding Danzo's attempt to impose/threaten Itachi by exploiting his feeling in regards to Sasuke. Itachi's flashback along with the final page of the chapter implicates that Sasuke's innocence was a BONUS..... The real reason Sasuke was spared was ............


----------



## LS20 (Jun 24, 2012)

Lol it was confirmed by Tobi long ago Itachi had a girl-friend, he was 13 when he murdered the clan. Now how old do you think she was!? Itachi killed children, his gf is one confirmed child death. The ONLY reason Kishi would leave the statement "ambiguous" is so he doesn't directly say children were killed, so he can indirectly say it (and down-play it so he can keep up the Itachi = hero thing like he's been trying to do the whole time) Wake up people use some common sense. For Itachi to even have gf his own age, there would HAVE to be other children in the clan.

And using we haven't sen them also makes no sense because we never knew Itachi had a gf until Tobi said so and we still have yet to see her, if we ever will.

On top of that, we also know he killed elderly people who had nothing to do with the coup because they would be too fricken' old to fight. Sasuke's Aunt and Uncle looked like they hadn't been Shinobi in YEARS, they were old and out of shape and owned a bakery shop.


----------



## Yakkai (Jun 24, 2012)

"There weren't any Uchiha children but if there were Tobi killed them."

Is that about it? 

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt folks.


----------



## ueharakk (Jun 24, 2012)

Yeah Itachi obviously didn't kill any babies or children, because they didn't have to be killed since they would follow the same mindset as sasuke: hatred/vengeance towards itachi not konoha.


----------



## Grendel (Jun 24, 2012)

LS20 said:


> On top of that, we also know he killed elderly people who had nothing to do with the coup because they would be too fricken' old to fight. Sasuke's Aunt and Uncle looked like they hadn't been Shinobi in YEARS, they were old and out of shape and owned a bakery shop.



Just wanted to point out that this is not something we "know" as just because someone is older doesn't mean they had nothing to do with the coup...the gf thing(since term gf was never used) isnt confirmed as a child death either but not getting into that


Also "denial" isnt a river in egypt...that phrase doesn't really work typed.


----------



## Prince Vegeta (Jun 24, 2012)

even if itachi killed just one person its still wrong


----------



## Prince Vegeta (Jun 24, 2012)

to say sasuke is the only child in a clan thats rival to the senju is just way too fucked up and stupid.


----------



## LS20 (Jun 24, 2012)

Grendel said:


> Just wanted to point out that this is not something we "know" as just because someone is older doesn't mean they had nothing to do with the coup...the gf thing(since term gf was never used) isnt confirmed as a child death either but not getting into that
> 
> 
> Also "denial" isnt a river in egypt...that phrase doesn't really work typed.



They owned a bakery shop and sold bread, cakes and chocalates. They were were not Danzo and Hiruzen. They were retired nin.

As for Itachi's gf, I never said that was the term that was used, it's a term I'm using. And yes that is a confirmed death considering Tobi specifically said "Itachi killed his lover" go look it up. Itachi was 13-years old when he wiped out the clan, now how old do you think the person he was romantically involved with was? 25? Come on, common sense. That person was a kid just like him. A child HE killed, proving there were children in the clan.


----------



## Grendel (Jun 24, 2012)

LS20 said:


> They owned a bakery shop and sold bread, cakes and chocalates. They were were not Danzo and Hiruzen. They were retired nin.
> 
> As for Itachi's gf, I never said that was the term that was used, it's a term I'm using. And yes that is a confirmed death considering Tobi specifically said "Itachi killed his lover" go look it up. Itachi was 13-years old when he wiped out the clan, now how old do you think the person he was romantically involved with was? 25? Come on, common sense. That person was a kid just like him. A child HE killed, proving there were children in the clan.



You dont have to even participate in violence to have been in on the coup so again the fact that they were old doesn't exclude them from anything.  You may assume that they werent but that doesn't make it fact...

I am not debating the gf thing...I know it said "lover"...but you use common sense if the person he's with is adult enough to have a lover and more than likely a shinobi being an uchiha...you can hardly call that person a child especially when itachi is being treated like an adult on nf...also 13 is past childhood and into adolescence

The person being his age as you say would change things to as calling someone a child killer when they themselves are a child in your eyes changes things...


Anyway I think the massacre was poorly written and done arguing a side that I dont necessarily stand on...


----------



## EmperorZeo (Jun 24, 2012)

He wiped out his entire clan. Odds are that included the kids. Best case scenario "Hey Tobi can you take care of the kids? I don't have the stomach for it." Doesn't exactly make him look like a better person.


----------



## JPongo (Jun 24, 2012)

I see the OP is the one confused over the panel.

It's as straight-forward as you can get.


----------



## Easley (Jun 25, 2012)

It's pretty clear that Kishi is being intentionally vague. Even hinting at murdered babies/children might be a step too far for this manga, better to leave those messy details to your imagination. 

I prefer if Tobi was responsible for most of the massacre victims. Not because I believe Itachi is innocent (he isn't), but Tobi as main villain should take extra credit. It makes him even more cruel and ruthless - a complete monster.


----------



## JPongo (Jun 25, 2012)

^The thing is, it's not what you believe or want to believe, it's what's said in the manga.


----------



## Easley (Jun 25, 2012)

JPongo said:


> ^The thing is, it's not what you believe or want to believe, it's what's said in the manga.


Right, but takL said that "children" isn't in the raw, hence it wasn't wrote by Kishi. The English translators used plural because it makes the most sense. A single child in an entire clan is too ridiculous to consider.


----------



## Tengu (Jun 25, 2012)

Prince Vegeta said:


> to say sasuke is the only child in a clan thats rival to the senju is just way too fucked up and stupid.



Seeing as the senju clan has today 1 member--> Tsunade it could be true.


----------



## Prince Vegeta (Jun 25, 2012)

So out all of those uchiha clan members Fugaku was the only one to have a child


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jun 25, 2012)

LS20 said:


> Lol it was confirmed by Tobi long ago Itachi had a girl-friend, he was 13 when he murdered the clan. Now how old do you think she was!? Itachi killed children, his gf is one confirmed child death. The ONLY reason Kishi would leave the statement "ambiguous" is so he doesn't directly say children were killed, so he can indirectly say it (and down-play it so he can keep up the Itachi = hero thing like he's been trying to do the whole time) Wake up people use some common sense. For Itachi to even have gf his own age, there would HAVE to be other children in the clan.
> 
> And using we haven't sen them also makes no sense because we never knew Itachi had a gf until Tobi said so and we still have yet to see her, if we ever will.
> 
> On top of that, we also know he killed elderly people who had nothing to do with the coup because they would be too fricken' old to fight. Sasuke's Aunt and Uncle looked like they hadn't been Shinobi in YEARS, they were old and out of shape and owned a bakery shop.



His girl friend was 35. Itachi liked milfs


----------



## Prince Vegeta (Jun 25, 2012)

Yep Itachi is a hero he killed his parents and the rest of his clans because he wanted to complete a mission


----------



## Shaz (Jun 25, 2012)

I call this denial kid.


----------



## Saturday (Jun 25, 2012)

he did it oh well I still like him and think of his as a good person considering everything.


----------



## Alexdhamp (Jun 25, 2012)

Heh.. Kodomo means both "child" and "children" depending on the context is what I keep hearing. If Danzou just wanted to specify one child, wouldn't he have said something like "ano kodomo" to refer to Sasuke indirectly? Personally, I feel he was _including_ Sasuke in his reference to the "unknowing children". A "loaded" statement, as it were.


----------



## Missing_Nin (Jun 25, 2012)

itachi the baby killer.


----------



## LS20 (Jun 25, 2012)

Easley said:


> It's pretty clear that Kishi is being intentionally vague. Even hinting at murdered babies/children might be a step too far for this manga, better to leave those messy details to your imagination.



This too. Considering the demographic this manga is aimed at. I doubt Kishi's editors will let him blatantly say children and infants were murdered. So he did it indirectly, allowing the readers to again apply common sense.



Tengu said:


> Seeing as the senju clan has today 1 member--> Tsunade it could be true.



This example is so horrible it's laughable. Seriously now, how can you compare one the few surviving members (a 50-something year old woman) from a clan that was LONG since wiped out/disbanded or spread out. To a very active Uchiha clan that while smaller than it used to be, was still going strong when Sasuke was a little kid?


----------



## Missing_Nin (Jun 25, 2012)

LS20 said:


> This too. Considering the demographic this manga is aimed at. I doubt Kishi's editors will let him blatantly let say children and infants were murdered. So he did it indirectly, allowing the readers to again apply common sense.



common sense in NF forums?  get that shit outta here.

typical NF user-if it didnt show or was stated that itachi didnt kill babies/children he didnt.  he only killed all the uchiha who somehow didnt have babies or children at that time.


----------



## Empathy (Jun 25, 2012)

Itachi can do no wrong.


----------



## αce (Jun 25, 2012)

Itachi the abortion doctor


----------



## Gilgamesh (Jun 25, 2012)

I wouldn't be surprised if it was Tobi who killed the kids and babies

Kishi loves Itachi too much to make him a child murderer


----------



## Frawstbite (Jun 25, 2012)

♠Ace♠ said:


> Itachi the abortion doctor



Still cooler than Dr. Snakes.



Gilgamesh said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if it was Tobi who killed the kids and babies
> 
> Kishi loves Itachi too much to make him a child murderer



Yet he's never gone back on that dark part of Itachi's past. I think it's cooler. He's trying his best to redeem himself, yet it is impossible after doing what he did. So he tries even after death.

It'd be lame if he just dropped in to stab mom and dad.


----------



## fukkengan (Jun 26, 2012)

Prince Vegeta said:


> So out all of those uchiha clan members Fugaku was the only one to have a child



I only see men there, you have to remember the Uchiha clan only have mikoto. The rest are mostly boys and there's no proof of the otherwise. So its easier to assume the only kid was Sasuke.


----------



## Corvida (Jun 26, 2012)

fukkengan said:


> I only see men there, you have to remember *the Uchiha clan only have mikoto*. The rest are mostly boys



??????????????????????????????????????????????????

And she birthed all the Uchihas seen dead in the street,the police force that came to arrest Itachi and the elderly-and lethal- mister and mrs Baking shop  owner? Or those boys grew from cabbages?





Puxa Asturias!

*Spoiler*: __ 



[


----------



## takL (Jun 26, 2012)

sasuke was the only 'innocent' kid in the clan then.

maybe it had something to do with the kyubi incident.

again, i do think there shouldve been other children older than Sasuke(7), old enough to know of the coup scheme and got killed in that night, for theyd know it was not done sorely by some psychopath but konoha was behind it. again, cjeck danzo's argument ie
if done by itachi it wont need to kill an innocent little kid.
it must have been a situation like  "those who know the truth should die" in there. 


FYI nowadays there are less than 5 under 7 kids per 100 jps....its serious.


----------



## supersaiyan146 (Jun 26, 2012)

takL said:


> FYI nowadays there are less than 5 under 7 kids per 100 jps....its serious.



Comparing modern day Japan to a Ninja clan with high mortality rate ? Seems legit ..


----------



## takL (Jun 26, 2012)

yep in the old days more kids (per 100 jps) died before reaching the age of 7.


----------



## supersaiyan146 (Jun 26, 2012)

takL said:


> yep in the old days more kids (per 100 jps) died before reaching the age of 7.



So you are saying that ..all the kids conceived around Sasuke's time and after him died before the massacre ?  Not even one survived ?


----------



## fukkengan (Jun 26, 2012)

Corvida said:


> ??????????????????????????????????????????????????
> 
> And she birthed all the Uchihas seen dead in the street,the police force that came to arrest Itachi and the elderly-and lethal- mister and mrs Baking shop  owner? Or those boys grew from cabbages?
> 
> ...




 Unlike the rest of the clans in Konoha, the Uchiha clan was portrayed as a male clan of bloodthirsty traitors. During the massacre flashbacks, the itachi flashbacks, and even the Madara Flashbacks, it have always shown a population composed of boys. Mikoto was possibly the only exception because she was not an uchiha by blood, she is not the type of girl who can use the Sharingan. All those people you are talking about probably came from women who belonged to different clans or no clans at all. 

 Therefore Sasuke was the only Uchiha kid.


----------



## Plot Hole (Jun 26, 2012)

This is surly a troll thread.


----------



## LS20 (Jun 26, 2012)

fukkengan said:


> Unlike the rest of the clans in Konoha, the Uchiha clan was portrayed as a male clan of bloodthirsty traitors. During the massacre flashbacks, the itachi flashbacks, and even the Madara Flashbacks, it have always shown a population composed of boys. Mikoto was possibly the only exception because she was not an uchiha by blood, she is not the type of girl who can use the Sharingan. All those people you are talking about probably came from women who belonged to different clans or no clans at all.
> 
> Therefore Sasuke was the only Uchiha kid.





Then how are they full-blooded Uchiha? If that were the case wouldn't the  mixing cause serious dilution of Uchiha blood over the generations? To the point where by the time Sasuke and Itachi are born they'd only have a small percentage of Uchiha lineage? Come on man.

Plus your ignoring the female Uchiha shown with Sharingan in that pic, especially clearly in the first one (the one bending down with the pony-tail in the right hand corner).


----------



## fukkengan (Jun 26, 2012)

LS20 said:


> Then how are they full-blooded Uchiha? If that were the case wouldn't the  mixing cause serious dilution of Uchiha blood over the generations? To the point where by the time Sasuke and Itachi are born they'd only have a small percentage of Uchiha lineage? Come on man.
> 
> Plus your ignoring the female Uchiha shown with Sharingan in that pic, especially clearly in the first one (the one bending down with the pony-tail in the right hand corner).



 There's not something like a full blood uchiha, just like there's not something like a full blood senju, the clans have been pairing together over the generations just think about the first uchiha descendant of the older rikudou son, at his time he was the only uchiha, but he wasnt supose to fuck himself to create the clan. Its pure logic. 

 And in that pic everyone is male, its just that some uchihas might have female eyes, I swear itachi looks more girly than all of them, and they all have flat chests.


----------



## Prince Vegeta (Jun 26, 2012)

fukkengan said:


> I only see men there, you have to remember the Uchiha clan only have mikoto. The rest are mostly boys and there's no proof of the otherwise. So its easier to assume the only kid was Sasuke.



lol the clan has only miloto yup how believable mikoto the only female in the clan and fugaku married her the rest of the clan are virgins since there is no one but mikoto and she is taken


----------



## takL (Jun 26, 2012)

fukkengan said:


> Therefore Sasuke was the only Uchiha kid.



well i have to disagree with this bit. 
sasuke might be the youngest but there'd ve been 8yrs 9yrs 10yrs~ old kids in the clan, i reckon. itachi himself was only 13.

imo because sasuke was the last/youngest kid to the clan
itachi now thinks sasuke as the future of the clan could have been a key to change the mindset of the clan not just of his parents.


----------



## Corvida (Jun 26, 2012)

fukkengan said:


> Unlike the rest of the clans in Konoha, the Uchiha clan was portrayed *as a male clan *of bloodthirsty traitors. During the massacre flashbacks, the itachi flashbacks, and even the Madara Flashbacks, it have always shown a population composed of boys. Mikoto was possibly the only exception because she was not an uchiha by blood, she is not the type of girl who can use the Sharingan. All those people you are talking about probably came from women who belonged to different clans or no clans at all.
> 
> Therefore Sasuke was the only Uchiha kid.



No. And no. Of course that all those young male Uchihas seen dead  in the street, Itachi?s close age pal Shishui *MUST * have a mother-even the members of the police force, and m Bakery shop can perfectly have mothers and wives coming from outside the clan, but they themselves are Uchihas and  are seen weariong the clan?s crest. And their wives and kids? Think of this-  both Mikoto Mrs  cookie seller, even if they came from outside were killed along with their husbands-as was the fate of the wives and young children of all those male Uchihas you see  lyiing  dead in the street.

It?s  silly to think Fugaku was the  only married Uchiha, or the only Uchiha with kids-only clan leader can reproduce?. Danzo?s  first menace was, of course, pointing indirectly at Sasuke, but it?s clear there were more young Uchihas there, and of course,  more women besides Mikoto and mrs  cookies.





Puxa Asturias!

*Spoiler*: __ 



[


----------



## fukkengan (Jun 26, 2012)

Prince Vegeta said:


> lol the clan has only miloto yup how believable mikoto the only female in the clan and fugaku married her the rest of the clan are virgins since there is no one but mikoto and she is taken



 When have kishimoto stated in the manga that Uchihas are forced to marry only other Uchihas? There's not such restriction.



Corvida said:


> No. And no. Of course that all those young male Uchihas seen dead  in the street, Itachi?s close age pal Shishui *MUST * have a mother-even the members of the police force, and m Bakery shop can perfectly have mothers and wives coming from outside the clan, but they themselves are Uchihas and  are seen weariong the clan?s crest. And their wives and kids? Think of this-  both Mikoto Mrs  cookie seller, even if they came from outside were killed along with their husbands-as was the fate of the wives and young children of all those male Uchihas you see  lyiing  dead in the street.
> 
> It?s  silly to think Fugaku was the  only married Uchiha, or the only Uchiha with kids-only clan leader can reproduce?. Danzo?s  first menace was, of course, pointing indirectly at Sasuke, but it?s clear there were more young Uchihas there, and of course,  more women besides Mikoto and mrs  cookies.
> 
> ...



 I never said Fukagu was the only married Uchiha, but you are basing your arguments on umproved assumptions, there was never a hint in the manga that stated Uchihas are supose to fuck only other Uchihas. Actually if we take the example of every other clan, like the parents of Naruto, its clear that there's not such thing as a pure lineage in Konoha in any sense, it would be ridiculous, all of the Uchihas would be deformed and retarded beings if they could only fuck with their brothers and sisters.


----------



## fukkengan (Jun 26, 2012)

takL said:


> well i have to disagree with this bit.
> sasuke might be the youngest but there'd ve been 8yrs 9yrs 10yrs~ old kids in the clan, i reckon. itachi himself was only 13.
> 
> imo because sasuke was the last/youngest kid to the clan
> itachi now thinks sasuke as the future of the clan could have been a key to change the mindset of the clan not just of his parents.



 At the age of 13 its not considered a kid anymore, but more like something between teen and preteen. And that what you say about being 10yrs and 8yrs, it was never said in the manga, so you are just assuming stuff and believing in it like if it was real with no evidence at all. How do you plan us to believe you?


----------



## LS20 (Jun 26, 2012)

fukkengan said:


> There's not something like a full blood uchiha, just like there's not something like a full blood senju, the clans have been pairing together over the generations just think about the first uchiha descendant of the older rikudou son, at his time he was the only uchiha, but he wasnt supose to fuck himself to create the clan. Its pure logic.



Lol take that up with Kishi, because he is clearly making a huge distinction between the clans. If we use logic, the two sons were brothers, so the Senju should be more than capable of developing the eye trait genetically and vice-versa (the body or whatever it is they do). Yet that's not the case, the older sons clan ONLY has the eye trait (for generations) and the younger one ONLY the body trait (for generations). According to Kishi, the Uchiha can't even use certain techs without having Senju blood, if they were all mixed up like you say, this shouldn't matter.

In fact, the only way what Kishi's telling us would make sense is if Rikodu created his sons from stratch with reality warping powers equally dividing his power between them. Otherwise both should exhibit the same traits.

Senj clan=one blood line
Uchiha clan=one blood line 
Hyuuga clan=one blood line 

If it weren't their blood-line traits could not be so dominant.



> And in that pic everyone is male, its just that some uchihas might have female eyes, I swear itachi looks more girly than all of them, and they all have flat chests.



Okay, believe what you will, still doesn't change the fact you're trying to tell me an entire clan can only give birth to male Uchiha and somehow Mikota snuck in there. Which is laughable.

Plus, Itachi had a GF which he killed, WITHIN THE CLAN!


----------



## Yakkai (Jun 26, 2012)

This thread delivers the luls.


----------



## takL (Jun 26, 2012)

fukkengan said:


> At the age of 13 its not considered a kid anymore,



to me a 13 yr old is still a kid. ima decade older than them. ive learned a lot since when i was 13.


----------



## Corvida (Jun 26, 2012)

> fukkengan said:
> 
> 
> > I never said Fukagu was the only married Uchiha, but you are basing your arguments on umproved assumptions, there was never a hint in the manga that stated Uchihas are supose to fuck only other Uchihas. Actually if we take the example of every other clan, like the parents of Naruto, its clear that there's not such thing as a pure lineage in Konoha in any sense, it would be ridiculous, all of the Uchihas would be deformed and retarded beings if they could only fuck with their brothers and sisters.
> ...


----------



## G Felon (Jun 26, 2012)

Wow u really believe itachi didn't kill Any kids ? This is a clan of people of course tobi and itachi killed children


----------



## fukkengan (Jun 26, 2012)

LS20 said:


> Lol take that up with Kishi, because he is clearly making a huge distinction between the clans. If we use logic, the two sons were brothers, so the Senju should be more than capable of developing the eye trait genetically and vice-versa (the body or whatever it is they do). Yet that's not the case, the older sons clan ONLY has the eye trait (for generations) and the younger one ONLY the body trait (for generations). According to Kishi, the Uchiha can't even use certain techs without having Senju blood, if they were all mixed up like you say, this shouldn't matter.
> 
> In fact, the only way what Kishi's telling us would make sense is if Rikodu created his sons from stratch with reality warping powers equally dividing his power between them. Otherwise both should exhibit the same traits.
> 
> ...



 I share your opinion about the Senju and Uchiha Blood sharing traits should be logical, yet it isnt, Kishimoto made it clear from that moment that they were the only descendants of Rikudou, but what does Hyuuga have to do with all this? The main bloodlines are Uchiha and Senju, the Hyuuga clan is something totally different, at least until kishi clears up the subject. 

 To me its as follows:

 Elder son had children with a random girl of another clan, those children had children with more random girls, and they made the Uchiha clan, the Uchiha clan had children with the random girls of Konoha, and they created the clan from which we know Sasuke and Itachi.

 The Senju did the same, but they were more closed minded to random girls, so they had children with a closed selective group of clans like the Uzumaki.

 Something like a pureblood does not exist if you are asuming that the Uchihas came from 1 single person, unless you think the Rikoudo also had another daughter which had i*c*st with the older son. And I dont think Kishi is into i*c*st.


----------



## fukkengan (Jun 26, 2012)

takL said:


> to me a 13 yr old is still a kid. ima decade older than them. ive learned a lot since when i was 13.




 then that's a matter of perspective, for a person of another decade older than yours, you could be a kid.


----------



## fukkengan (Jun 26, 2012)

Corvida said:


> > Then you?re making a mess  even bigger than you think. I?m telling you again. If Fugaku wasnt the only married Uchiha, and there is mrs cookie seller, for example, there were more women than Mikoto in the Uchiha side of the city that night-I DONT CARE WHERE THEY CAME FROM,   IF THEY WERE THERE LIVING WITH THEIR HUSBANDS, THEY WERE KILLED LIKE MIKOTO.   Unless you imply now that all male Uchihas  except Fugaku were divorced   or had their families living outside their homes. The whole clan was massacred that night.
> >
> >
> >
> ...


----------



## arokh (Jun 26, 2012)

Orochibuto said:


> So basically you are trying to justify Itachi, nice try.



Itachi doesn't need to be justified you fool, blame your precious Konoha who gave the actual orders. Village > clan in the ninja world.

Kill em all


----------



## takL (Jun 26, 2012)

fukkengan said:


> then that's a matter of perspective, for a person of another decade older than yours, you could be a kid.



yea. u are under 13 perhaps?


----------



## fukkengan (Jun 26, 2012)

takL said:


> yea. u are under 13 perhaps?



 Of course not, but if your definition of kid is anyone who knows less than you, then based on your logic, Danzou meant most of the clan.


----------



## takL (Jun 26, 2012)

naa im sure danzo didnt know A woman.
and no to me under 16 and any cherries are kids.


----------



## fukkengan (Jun 26, 2012)

takL said:


> naa im sure danzo didnt know A woman.
> and no to me under 16 are kids.



 Being or not being a kid, is all about maturity. But based on the logic you stated before, you share the knowledge with a 16yrs teen, because since then you probably havent learned much.


----------



## takL (Jun 26, 2012)

that's kids logic and i dont play ur game. night night


----------



## Lelouch Vi Britannia (Jun 26, 2012)

yes its becuase kids just grow magically from trees.


----------



## fukkengan (Jun 26, 2012)

takL said:


> that's kids logic and i dont play ur game. night night



 You also have to notice how the "kids logic" can apply to its own logic. It means the logic that makes your logic being kidish is also due to the lack of knowledge. With still falls under the erroneus misconception you applied to measure someone's maturity depending on their age. 

 I have seen Kishimoto referring to this constantly through the manga, specially recently with Madara's phrase "do you think there's an adult who would seriously fight a kid?" when speaking to someone old enough to die already. Or also during the beggining of the manga when Kakashi told Naruto than in this(their) world there's people younger than Naruto but Stronger than Kakashi.

 To me its clear, Danzou wasnt talking about Knowledge or Jutsus, he was referring to Youth solely.


----------



## Prince Vegeta (Jun 26, 2012)

fukkengan said:


> When have kishimoto stated in the manga that Uchihas are forced to marry only other Uchihas? There's not such restriction.
> 
> .


 so mikoto was a slut?


----------



## fukkengan (Jun 26, 2012)

Prince Vegeta said:


> so mikoto was a slut?



 No, but if she was unable to use Sharingan, its possible she wasnt even from the Clan. At least not by blood.


----------



## Donquixote Doflamingo (Jun 26, 2012)

Why are people stuck on the children/babies.

The bastard still killed a large number of his family including his parents.


----------



## Frawstbite (Jun 26, 2012)

Donquixote Doflamingo said:


> Why are people stuck on the children/babies.
> 
> The bastard still killed a large number of his family including his parents.



Apparently every single Uchiha was no doubt a ninja willing to overthrow Konoha.

Not a single non ninja in the village.


----------



## Corvida (Jun 26, 2012)

fukkengan said:


> Corvida said:
> 
> 
> > I think you missed my point completly, If you read again I even stated that Mikoto lacked of a Sharingan, she's the only women shown in the massacre because she knew about the coup.
> ...


----------



## LS20 (Jun 26, 2012)

fukkengan said:


> I share your opinion about the Senju and Uchiha Blood sharing traits should be logical, yet it isnt, Kishimoto made it clear from that moment that they were the only descendants of Rikudou.



Right, which is exactly my point. They are the only descendants of Rikudo yet Kishi is saying that each one can only possess one trait of Rikodu and pass it down.



> But what does Hyuuga have to do with all this? The main bloodlines are Uchiha and Senju, the Hyuuga clan is something totally different, at least until kishi clears up the subject.



No, they aren't completely different. They possess a blood-line trait a genetic EYE trait at that. The trait is so strong in this clan you can see the Hyuuga eyes at birth. Which means they kept it within the family, simple as that.



> To me its as follows:
> 
> Elder son had children with a random girl of another clan, those children had children with more random girls, and they made the Uchiha clan, the Uchiha clan had children with the random girls of Konoha, and they created the clan from which we know Sasuke and Itachi.



Think about what you're saying here, if the Uchiha were having children with random Konoha girls their blood would be heavily diluted. The sharingan eye trait would be VERY rare. Yet, we see during the time there was still alive with Sasuke and Itachi a LOT of them had the sharingan, including Sasuke's father.



> The Senju did the same, but they were more closed minded to random girls, so they had children with a closed selective group of clans like the Uzumaki.



No, the Uchiha and Hyuuga are the close minded ones, as we can see the genetic trait is dominant in their blood. The Senju's traits are so general and generic you wouldn't know if you were looking at one anyway. It wouldn't even matter who they mated with honestly. There's NO denying if you saw an Uchiha or a Hyuuga because the traits are just too dominant.

The Rikodu thing doesn't make sense, like I said unless he literally created his sons (and even then). Which is why it was MUCH better when Kakashi said the Sharingan was derived from the Byakugan back in part 1.



> Something like a pureblood does not exist if you are asuming that the Uchihas came from 1 single person, unless you think the Rikoudo also had another daughter which had i*c*st with the older son.



See above posts. 

Plus, the eldest son did not have a sharingan, he had some weird spiral eye that looked like a Rinnegan but not quite. It seems his eye mutated over the generations into the sharingan. So let's say he had two descendants at some point that possessed the sharingan a boy and a girl. They get together because they want the clan to stay pure BOOM there's the start of your Uchiha clan.



> And I dont think Kishi is into i*c*st.



I don't think Kishi is into logic.



> I think you missed my point completly, If you read again I even stated that Mikoto lacked of a Sharingan.



Just because you didn't see her with her sharingan on doesn't mean she didn't have it...come on man. I don't see Kakashi's face so I guess that means he doesn't have a lower jaw and a mouth...Plus, women are irrelevant in this manga, there's no way she was going to play a large enough role for us to see her actually use sharingan.


----------



## Tobirama Senju (Jun 26, 2012)

It was stated that sauce was the only survivor so I guess he did kill them after all


----------



## butcher50 (Jun 30, 2012)

since this is still a shounen and not a seinen Kishi wouldn't show how Itachi fullfilled his duties as a race traitor (manipulated as he might have been).

nor will he show how the moral preaching "heroes" make their living.

keep in mind that it's still a strictly shounen bullshit, despite all the adult themes and issues presented.


----------



## KFC (Jun 30, 2012)

I sincerely doubt that Sasuke was the only child in the largest clan in the Leaf


----------



## butcher50 (Jun 30, 2012)

KFC said:


> I sincerely doubt that Sasuke was the only child in the largest clan in the Leaf



his cultists will use any excuse to soften his sins.

when it comes to ending the life of children these excuses exists due to incomplete information but that information is complete because of the genre's nature/publication format that Naruto is written on.


----------



## Tengu (Jun 30, 2012)

KFC said:


> I sincerely doubt that Sasuke was the only child in the largest clan in the Leaf



Itachi said the Uchiha clan had become a small clan.


----------



## UltimateDeadpool (Jun 30, 2012)

KFC said:


> I sincerely doubt that Sasuke was the only child in the largest clan in the Leaf



Agreed, Fugaku and Mikoto were obviously not the only couple having children in the entire clan.


----------



## butcher50 (Jun 30, 2012)

i said it a million times before and i'm gonna keep repeating it until i bleed out.

Itachi's evil sins and Konoha's hypocrisy isn't really their fault, it's Kishimoto's and the  genre he is restricted to. 

Simply put, "ninja/shinobi" or in fact any group of directly   government-sponsored super-soldiers or secret intelligence   operatives, are not suited for heroic work, heroic morals and heroic   classification. 

What they do may serve a purpose, and perhaps even the  'greater good'  (whatever that is), but it is not heroic and includes a  whole lot of questionable nastiness. if  this was like  Basilisk then there will be no problem, but we are forced  to deal with  the tragic mess of hypocrisy that is Naruto.

Kishimoto has, through Konoha, tried to have it both ways, having ninja,   for the 'sheer awesomeness' factor that seems to be associated with   that word and profession, but also having a heroic shounen melodrama centered around these   16-years-old,  trained-to-kill, "regular" teenagers. 

It doesn't work, it simply cannot work. Most people who do this simply   remove everyone about ninja from the label when making a series. Kishimoto, instead, tried to have ninja be more like   ninja but still being superheroes. 

You can't do that, and it leads to the ridiculous vagueness and hypocrisy of Itachi and Konoha's actions.

The idea of this morally didactic village sprawling with assassins for a   military doctrine is risible, it doesn't works that way.

Ninja village + pacifist, heroic ideals = does NOT work. You can't be an   assassin village and have these standards without hypocrisy; that's   impossible. 

one way or another it's filled with assassins who don't (and can't) ask   questions. 

But of course, Kishimoto cannot deviate from this current system because   this is a ninja series, and that's what ninja do. but this is the   primary reason why ninja villages and these amicable ideals cannot mix,   and it's something that Kishimoto has tried and failed at implementing.   realistically, Konoha should've either been a army town  without  these free-for-all Contract-Killer jobs and professions  (non-Ninja), or  a ninja village without these didactic ideals. 

You can't be both; it simply isn't possible without some form of absurd hypocrisy. 

and anyone who wants to bring in major reforms to the system is meet with a  massacring order which is essentially what happened to sasuke's folks.


----------



## ShiggyDiggyDoo (Jun 30, 2012)

Flow said:


> And yet, he still killed them. Itachi was killing other children/toddlers since he was their age.
> 
> It's amazing how people try to defend a genocidal freak.



Genocidal? He did what had to be done. The alternative would've resulted in not only the entire uchiha clan to be wiped out anyway, but also the potential destruction of Konoha.


----------



## butcher50 (Jun 30, 2012)

Spartan1337 said:


> Genocidal? He did what had to be done. The alternative would've resulted in not only the entire uchiha clan to be wiped out anyway, but also the potential destruction of Konoha.



hmm......not according to the implications of the latest chapters my dear.

the alternative towards a peaceful co-existence was something practically achievable (more or less) but Danzo sabotaged both Shisui and Hiruzen before they could do anything that would have stopped the blood-spilling on both sides, Danzo after all needed to harvest the Uchihans for body parts and if the Uchihans were forgiven and once again in good standing with Konoha and Hiruzen, that ambition would have been impossible.

(and if we learned anything about Danzo, he would do anything to achieve his ambitions)

all in all, they were unavoidably slaughtered to fullfill Danzo's needs, their upcoming rebellion was just an excuse.

but that shouldn't be surprising, considering that KG people don't have any real rights to begin with.


----------



## EJ (Jun 30, 2012)

Spartan1337 said:


> Genocidal? He did what had to be done. The alternative would've resulted in not only the entire uchiha clan to be wiped out anyway, but also the potential destruction of Konoha.



Uh, no. This was pure speculation. Let me ask you, why would Danzo risk and put all his trust within an Uchiha killing his own clan that he was born and raised in?

Like I said in one of my threads before, he was DESPERATE. Itachi could not see that he was though.


----------



## αce (Jun 30, 2012)

Okay forget the ethical argument.
Do people actually believe Sasuke was the only child?


----------



## EJ (Jun 30, 2012)

Yes, people do. Even though it was specifically stated in the manga that there were other children.


----------



## Hiko Seijurou (Jun 30, 2012)

He did, and I love him for it.  

 

:repstorm


----------



## Tengu (Jul 1, 2012)

Flow said:


> Yes, people do. Even though it was specifically stated in the manga that there were other children.



scan?

_>_>... -*SaiST*_


----------



## BlinkST (Jul 1, 2012)

♠Ace♠ said:


> Okay forget the ethical argument.
> Do people actually believe Sasuke was the only child?


 

Does that answer your question?


----------



## UltimateDeadpool (Jul 1, 2012)

♠Ace♠ said:


> Okay forget the ethical argument.
> Do people actually believe Sasuke was the only child?



For some reason... yes, people do actually believe that. They use a lack of proof as proof, disregarding simple logic.


----------



## EJ (Jul 1, 2012)

Tengu said:


> scan?



Chapter 315


----------



## BlinkST (Jul 1, 2012)

They were the only ones with a little boy at a certain time =! They were the only ones populating the clan


It's kind of not retarded to think the varying couples didn't exactly all have kids at the exact same time. Well, aside from the sheer fact that there's *no evidence* to show that there were other children at the time. 



Flow said:


> Chapter 315


----------



## Tengu (Jul 1, 2012)

Flow said:


> Chapter 315



In the raw, it doesn't say for certain that there are more kids.


----------



## EJ (Jul 1, 2012)

Tengu said:


> In the raw, it doesn't say for certain that there are more kids.



Right. 

In the course of 18 years, I'm sure Itachi and Sasuke were the only children born to the clan.

a raw you saw proves nothing, since it differs.

Proven fact, Itachi also killed elderly who were unable to defend themselves.


----------



## αce (Jul 1, 2012)

Was it not blatantly stated that Itachi had a lover?
Unless he was hunting cougars at that age (Itachi..who knows) then I'm fairly sure there were other minors.


----------



## EJ (Jul 1, 2012)

lol, Itachi  

hunting 30 yo uchiha women which I doubt.


----------



## Undead (Jul 1, 2012)

♠Ace♠ said:


> Was it not blatantly stated that Itachi had a lover?
> Unless he was hunting cougars at that age (Itachi..who knows) then I'm fairly sure there were other minors.


Yes, it was clearly stated Itachi had a lover. The gender though... Kishi left that to our imaginations.


----------



## BlinkST (Jul 1, 2012)

♠Ace♠ said:


> Was it not blatantly stated that Itachi had a lover?
> Unless he was hunting cougars at that age (Itachi..who knows) then I'm fairly sure there were other minors.


We're discussing kids like Sasuke and babies as per the thread title, not "technical" kids like that ho.


----------



## EJ (Jul 1, 2012)

^ No, that's what you're discussing. 

I can't honestly believe people think that a clan would not focus on making sure they had offspring and that Itachi/Sasuke were the only children.


----------



## αce (Jul 1, 2012)

Killing adolescents and killing toddlers.
Thin line.


----------



## BlinkST (Jul 1, 2012)

Flow said:


> Right.
> 
> In the course of 18 years, I'm sure Itachi and Sasuke were the only children born to the clan.


 Sasuke was the youngest. Notice there were virtually no other Uchiha children inducted into the academy or referenced during Sasuke's stay, and Sasuke never implies there were other Uchiha children when quizzing why he was spared as opposed to his mother and father. 



I don't think Sasuke is such an inconsiderate moron that he'd ask why he was spared as opposed to his mother and father as opposed _*other kids*_.




Flow said:


> a raw you saw proves nothing, since it differs.


It proves that Danzo was not referring to actual children, but Sasuke, and everything in that chapter points to him talking about Sauske. Kishimoto _wouldn't_ use 子供 (Kodomo) to refer to children, because it can be _*misinterpreted*_ as child instead. If he wanted to mean one child [Sasuke], he would have to use it. On the other hand, he would have to instead use 子供たち (kodomotachi) to refer to children, because that cannot be _*misinterpreted*_.


----------



## EJ (Jul 1, 2012)

Blinx-182 said:


> Sasuke was the youngest. Notice there were virtually no other Uchiha children inducted into the academy or referenced during Sasuke's stay, and Sasuke never implies there were other Uchiha children when quizzing why he was spared as opposed to his mother and father.




Poor logic. We already destroyed this argument awhile ago. The Yamanaka clan showed no children, Chouji's clan, Shino's clan, etc. So are they the only children in their clan?

Danzo said children. He specifically said *children*. 

Sasuke was spared because he was biased towards Sasuke.


----------



## BlinkST (Jul 1, 2012)

Flow said:


> The Yamanaka clan showed no children, Chouji's clan, Shino's clan, etc. So are they the only children in their clan?


Sure. why not? 



Flow said:


> Danzo said children. He specifically said *children*.


He didn't, according to someone who actually speaks japanese. 



Flow said:


> Sasuke was spared because he was biased towards Sasuke.


Something tells me he would have brought up the murder of other Uchiha children instead of his mother and father if that was actually the case.


----------



## EJ (Jul 1, 2012)

Blinx-182 said:


> Sure. why not?



So now you're claiming that they are the only children of their clan because no other children were shown? 

that's a big leap.



> He didn't, according to someone who actually speaks japanese.
> 
> 
> Something tells me he would have brought up the murder of other Uchiha children instead of his mother and father if that was actually the case.




Something tells me people are in denial and can't accept the fact Itachi killed his own family, Uchiha ninjas, elderly who were unable to defend themselves, and children.


----------



## BlinkST (Jul 1, 2012)

Flow said:


> So now you're claiming that they are the only children of their clan because no other children were shown?
> 
> that's a big leap.


Indeed I am. Moving on: 



Flow said:


> Something tells me people are in denial and can't accept the fact Itachi killed his own family, Uchiha ninjas, elderly who were unable to defend themselves, and children.


 Something tells me he would have brought up the murder of other Uchiha children instead of his mother and father if that was actually the case. There is simply no evidence of other Uchiha children besides delusional reasoning over a bunk translation.


----------



## EJ (Jul 1, 2012)

Blinx-182 said:


> Indeed I am. Moving on:



Which is completely foolish. In fact, we should consider that Shino's clan only consist of him and his father.

Ino's clan only consist of her and two others.

Do you not see where I am getting at? You're using poor reasoning/logic in order to support the fact that there were no children in the Uchiha clan.



> Something tells me he would have brought up the murder of other Uchiha children instead of his mother and father if that was actually the case. There is simply no evidence of other Uchiha children besides delusional reasoning over a bunk translation.



As far as it goes, it was stated he killed children.


----------



## Mutant Anemone (Jul 1, 2012)

What counts as a child, anyway? Anyone Itachi's age (at the time of the massacre) or younger? Only the prepubescent? Only itty bitty babies?

And why would Itachi have any compunctions about killing children, anyway? He started killing when he was, like... a snotty-nosed brat basically, and presumably enemy-nin had just as many child soldiers as Konoha does... I don't think they count as civilian deaths when they can be drafted, but maybe I'm wrong.

I don't actually care, btw. Just sorta curious.


----------



## EJ (Jul 1, 2012)

^ I said the exact thing. He was killing children his age SINCE he was a toddler.


----------



## BlinkST (Jul 1, 2012)

Flow said:


> Which is completely foolish. In fact, we should consider that Shino's clan only consist of him and his father.


I won't bother with pointless strawman reasoning. 



Flow said:


> As far as it goes, it was stated he killed children.


No, it didn't.


----------



## Kazuya Mishima (Jul 1, 2012)

Blinx-182 said:


> No, it didn't.



That's funny because every scan I read used children. Why should I be taking that guys word as gospel instead?


----------



## butcher50 (Jul 1, 2012)

Blinx-182 said:


> Indeed I am. Moving on:
> 
> 
> Something tells me he would have brought up the murder of other Uchiha children instead of his mother and father if that was actually the case. There is simply no evidence of other Uchiha children besides delusional reasoning over a bunk translation.



and something tells me that due to genre's/publication format's constraints Kishimoto cannot make a step further to make a concrete and precise (not even verbal or partial off-panel) confirmation on this issue, so he keeps it 50/50% vague, even if a simple common sense and logic scream otherwise.

(Itachi's status as an over-glorified martyr saint and justified ethnic cleanser must be preserved through incomplete data)

if nothing else it highlights the author's gross mishandling and irresponsibility with adult complexities unsuitable for this story.


----------



## BlinkST (Jul 1, 2012)

Kazuya Mishima said:


> That's funny because every scan I read used children. Why should I be taking that guys word as gospel instead?


He outlined the japanese perfectly. 

子供 (Kodomo) | Can be singular _or_ plural; used in manga
子供たち (kodomotachi) | Can _only_ be plural

Usage of the former can only be done of course if it's to be taken as singular. It can also be taken as plural, but the problem with that is just that: it can be _misinterpreted_ to be plural if he's trying to show a singular meaning. The latter (子供たち) would therefore be used if he intended a plural meaning, because that has only _one_ meaning and can't be _misinterpreted_. He intended a singular meaning [Sasuke], which is pretty obvious from the way Danzo was speaking.

Again, when Sasuke inquired as to why he was saved, he asked why he was spared in lieu of his _mother and father _instead in lieu of _other innocent Uchiha children_. Because there were no other innocent Uchiha children to speak of; he was the only one at the time.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Jul 1, 2012)

Yes, Sasuke clearly cares more for random Uchiha kids than his parents.

The lengths to which people go to create "evidence" that there were no Uchiha kids... 

It is proof positive that there is an axe to grind. Sasuke clearly cares most about his parents and Itachi clearly killed most about Sasuke, so any and all dialogue being used to say there was only one Uchiha child is moot. _All_ such dialogue does is remind us of the priorities of the brothers.


----------



## taydev (Jul 1, 2012)

Seriously? I'm sure innocent babies and children got killed too if Sasuke was the only one kept alive. Out of all the clan, I'm sure someone had a baby after Sasuke, since he was anywhere between 6 to 9 years old when the massacre happened.


----------



## Hiko Seijurou (Jul 1, 2012)

Itachi himself was a '_child_' at the time, so all is good.



Right, governments?


----------



## Akitō (Jul 1, 2012)

It's kind of silly to assume that Sasuke was the only child in an entire clan full of ninja: where were they expecting to go in the next twenty years, then? Because with the hypothetical rate that they were reproducing at, they would've died out in a hundred years. 

Anyway, I don't think that Itachi killing children during the massacre taints his reputation. The idea that he _did_ have to kill children just reaffirms the seriousness of the situation: that if any of them lived they would certainly seek revenge on the village. And we all saw how that turned out with Sasuke. 

Itachi was a man on a mission, and even though it sounds horrible to think about, I actually gained a little more respect for him after it was confirmed that he killed _everyone_. It just goes to show how much he cared for the village and his awareness: even though it killed him to do it, he knew that it was necessary.


----------



## warp drive (Jul 1, 2012)

Tengu said:


> Ok, so i see this panel caused a lot of confusion:
> 
> When Danzou said that they have to kill everyone including the children who know nothing.
> I think it is pretty clear that Danzou is referring to Sasuke here, and it was all part of his strategy to get Itachi on their sides.
> ...



A conclusion base on your opinion is invalid. If Sasuke were the only child, shit, why genocide a race that is already heading into extinction via inadequate population growth. What about the elder? About the women? The physically handicapped?
True: In an attempt to avoid war, Itachi commited a (THE) worse crime--GENOCIDE. Above all, there is no more worse crime than genocide. Itachi guilty by capital punishiment.


----------



## Hiko Seijurou (Jul 2, 2012)

He just sung them a lullaby to sleep.

Dat Itachi


----------



## Nikushimi (Jul 2, 2012)

Prince Vegeta said:


> to say sasuke is the only child in a clan thats rival to the senju is just way too fucked up and stupid.



"...because I say so."



JPongo said:


> I see the OP is the one confused over the panel.
> 
> It's as straight-forward as you can get.



Despite two well-known and credible fluent Japanese speakers agreeing in this very thread that the language is ambiguous.



Prince Vegeta said:


> Yep Itachi is a hero he killed his parents and the rest of his clans because he wanted to complete a mission



Sure, and the mission was nothing important of course.

Just saving the entirety of Konoha from the Uchiha clan's selfish and violent ambitions.


----------



## EJ (Jul 2, 2012)

I find it hilarious how people say "I'm not going to deal with a strawmen"

Do you honestly believe that Sasuke and Itachi were the only children in the clan? It's stuff like that, in which it makes me questionable of why someone would fight the fact that Itachi killed children.

I will point this out;

No. There were no Uchiha children shown at the time of the massacre. But to assume that Sasuke and Itachi (logically, but I still hold this as a manga) were the only children is flawed. Itachi even mentioned that he knew of Uchiha siblings killing one another in order to gain power. 

It's not too hard to accept, and the more people argue (on the wrong side) that "Itachi didn't kill children", it only makes it more laughable in a sense. 

If he would strike down elders unable to defend themselves, and killed toddlers his age when he was at war, he would have no problem raising a weapon to a baby/toddler. 

But this isn't the argument, since everyone already knows this. The argument being is "Did Itachi kill toddlers, babies"

which I'm sure he did, since I believe the Uchiha clan was concerned somewhat about the new generations.


----------



## Orochimaruwantsyourbody (Jul 2, 2012)

Nikushimi said:


> Sure, and the mission was nothing important of course.



Correct. Hiruzen did not feel is was needed. It was only important in that Danzo wanted Sharingans. 



> Just saving the entirety of Konoha from the Uchiha clan's selfish and violent ambitions



Those damn Uchiha wanting the end of segregation, to no longer to spied upon, and to have represensation in government. So selfish they needed to all be killed, even the babies too young to say Uchiha.


----------



## Nikushimi (Jul 2, 2012)

Flow said:


> I find it hilarious how people say "I'm not going to deal with a strawmen"
> 
> Do you honestly believe that Sasuke and Itachi were the only children in the clan? It's stuff like that, in which it makes me questionable of why someone would fight the fact that Itachi killed children.
> 
> ...



That's a historical fact; we were never given a timeframe for context, though. There were no EMS users in the most recent generation, and Shisui was the only known MS user before Itachi got it (which was after Shisui died).



> It's not too hard to accept, and the more people argue (on the wrong side) that "Itachi didn't kill children", it only makes it more laughable in a sense.



Because you think anyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot. Yeah, I get it.

You're wrong though.



> If he would strike down elders unable to defend themselves, and killed toddlers his age when he was at war, he would have no problem raising a weapon to a baby/toddler.



Too bad you don't have a lick of evidence to prove he did any of that, eh?



> But this isn't the argument, since everyone already knows this. The argument being is "Did Itachi kill toddlers, babies"
> 
> which I'm sure he did, since I believe the Uchiha clan was concerned somewhat about the new generations.





> which I'm sure he did, since I believe the Uchiha clan was concerned





> he did, since I believe the Uchiha





> since I believe





> I believe







Orochimaruwantsyourbody said:


> Correct. Hiruzen did not feel is was needed. It was only important in that Danzo wanted Sharingans.



That was only an ulterior motive. If Danzou had been up front about that, there's no doubt Itachi would've flatly refused him.

The original purpose for the mission was to protect Konoha and spare Sasuke from the massacre. Danzou just profiteered off of it and probably intended to from the start.



> Those damn Uchiha wanting the end of segregation, to no longer to spied upon, and to have represensation in government. So selfish they needed to all be killed,



They should have seceded from the village. Going as far as to start a revolution and kill villagers indiscriminately to get what they want makes them no better than the village elders.



> even the babies too young to say Uchiha.



I'm sure you have evidence to back this up.

Oh wait.

I meant "I'm sure you *don't* have evidence to back this up."


----------



## EJ (Jul 2, 2012)

Nikushimi, do you believe Itachi killed children/toddlers? Side question, do you believe he would had?


----------



## Closet Pervert (Jul 2, 2012)

That's right, because the whole clan was gay at the time, except Fugaku and Mikoto.It's a pretty reasonable assumption an immensely proud clan that wants to rule the place would not want to go extinct.


----------



## Nikushimi (Jul 2, 2012)

Flow said:


> Nikushimi, do you believe Itachi killed children/toddlers?



Itachi directly stated that he spared Sasuke because

1) Sasuke was too young to be aware of the coup d'etat

and

2) Itachi felt he should be punished later by a member of the Uchiha clan for what he had done.

Now if there were other innocent Uchiha in the clan, both these reasons for sparing Sasuke would be applicable to them as well. The fact that Sasuke is the only remaining Uchiha suggests there weren't. There may have been others around Itachi's age (e.g., his "lover"), but Itachi himself was involved in the coup.

Furthermore, the whole point of using Itachi to commit the massacre was so that he would shoulder the responsibility for it in the eyes of the public and there would be nothing to implicate the village elders for their involvement- that's the reason Danzou said "even the innocent child/children would need to be killed." It was all so they wouldn't grow up and try to take revenge against Konoha. By accepting this mission, Itachi became Konoha's "fall guy", which eliminated any need to worry about Uchiha survivors.

On top of all that, Tobi said Itachi killed his parents, his superiors, his friend(s), and his lover. He does not say anything about innocent children/babies/etc.

As for how plausible it is for a clan to have so few children, Itachi stated at one point that the Uchiha had dwindled in number. If all the clan amounted to was Itachi's family, plus a few aunts/uncles and some cousins, I don't see how it's unlikely at all for Sasuke to be the youngest and the only one unaware of the family's intentions.



> Side question, do you believe he would had?



Itachi overcame enormous emotional/psychological barriers in order to kill his parents and the rest of his clan, so who knows? If ordered to do it, it's possible he would have given in. But since Kishimoto has tried to portray Itachi as an inherently good person in spite of his deeds, it's also possible he wouldn't be able to bring himself to do it.

People have to remember that Itachi himself was only 13 at the time, and the product of years of Konoha's militaristic brainwashing. There are all kinds of psychological studies and testimonials in real life that examine human capacity for mercilessness; it's generally agreed that morality is always much easier to determine when you're on the outside looking in.

I guess to answer your question, I honestly don't know if he would or wouldn't. I hope he wouldn't, if he's really as good a person as we've been told he is, but human psychology is a complex thing.


----------



## Nikushimi (Jul 2, 2012)

Closet Pervert said:


> That's right, because the whole clan was gay at the time, except Fugaku and Mikoto.



This should have been obvious.

Sharingan is pretty much the "gay gene." 



> It's a pretty reasonable assumption an immensely proud clan that wants to rule the place would not want to go extinct.



It's an assumption nevertheless. One that isn't necessitated by anything objective.


----------



## EJ (Jul 2, 2012)

Nikushimi said:


> Itachi directly stated that he spared Sasuke because
> 
> 1) he was too young to be aware of the coup d'etat



He stated this, and also he loved his younger brother too much for him to bring himself to kill him. Many scans read children, and I doubt the Uchiha clan didn't have children. Whether they were a little younger than Sasuke, or a little older than him, I'm sure there were children. 

A prideful clan wouldn't drop reproducing. 



> and
> 
> 2) Itachi felt he should be punished later by a member of the Uchiha clan for what he had done.




ok? 


> Now if there were other innocent Uchiha in the clan, both these reasons for sparing Sasuke would be applicable to them as well. The fact that Sasuke is the only remaining Uchiha suggests there weren't. There may have been others around Itachi's age (e.g., his "lover"), but Itachi himself was involved in the coup.



No, Itachi would not had spared them. He only wanted his brother to kill him, no one else. He wouldn't want to risk them killing one another, or them taking the glory of being the one that killed them. It would defeat the purpose, he WANTED Sasuke to look like the hero. 

It's funny, this theory makes him even more fucked up.
 his parents, his superiors, his friend(s), and his lover. He does not say anything about innocent children/babies/etc.


> As for how plausible it is for a clan to have so few children, Itachi stated at one point that the Uchiha had dwindled in number. If all the clan amounted to was Itachi's family, plus a few aunts/uncles and some cousins, I don't see how it's unlikely at all for Sasuke to be the youngest and the only one unaware of the family's intentions.



No specific number was given, so why throw this out there? This is probably due to warfare, missions, siblings killing one another. It still doesn't denounce that there were children. 


> Itachi overcame enormous emotional/psychological barriers in order to kill his parents and the rest of his clan, so who knows? If ordered to do it, it's possible he would have given in. But since Kishimoto has tried to portray Itachi as an inherently good person in spite of his deeds, it's also possible he wouldn't be able to bring himself to do it.




Itachi would had, he had been killing since the age of 3.


----------



## Rawri (Jul 2, 2012)

Blinx-182 said:


> He outlined the japanese perfectly.
> 
> 子供 (Kodomo) | Can be singular _or_ plural; used in manga
> 子供たち (kodomotachi) | Can _only_ be plural
> ...




What's up with english translations being 'children' if Kishi most likely wrote 'child' in japanese?
Glad we have some japanese speakers around here.

Either way even if unlikely, it could still be children. Ambiguous to the end huh?


----------



## Nikushimi (Jul 2, 2012)

Flow said:


> He stated this, and also he loved his younger brother too much for him to bring himself to kill him. Many scans read children,



That is merely a translator's choice.

The actual language is ambiguous and there is no direct English equivalent; translators just use "children" because "child/children" would look sloppy and make the grammar awkward.



> and I doubt the Uchiha clan didn't have children. Whether they were a little younger than Sasuke, or a little older than him, I'm sure there were children.



"I doubt", "I believe", "I'm sure."

These phrases are of no consequence to me.



> A prideful clan wouldn't drop reproducing.



I'm not saying they did.



> No, Itachi would not had spared them. He only wanted his brother to kill him, no one else. He wouldn't want to risk them killing one another, or them taking the glory of being the one that killed them. It would defeat the purpose, he WANTED Sasuke to look like the hero.
> 
> It's funny, this theory makes him even more fucked up.



Ever consider that maybe all of that is the simple result of Sasuke being the only Uchiha *left?* 

You pretty much made-up that entire paragraph with no evidence from any official source to substantiate your claims.



> No specific number was given, so why throw this out there? This is probably due to warfare, missions, siblings killing one another. It still doesn't denounce that there were children.



It makes it a lot more believable that Sasuke was the only innocent child in the clan at the time, with the Uchiha confirmed to be few in number.



> Itachi would had, he had been killing since the age of 3.



Itachi's first known experience with bloodshed was at age 4.

And he was merely an observer, not a participant, as far as we were told.


----------



## αce (Jul 2, 2012)

13 pages
where are the mods?


----------



## Summers (Jul 2, 2012)

The Uchiha did have kids other than sauce. Tobi killed em, we have seen is all game for that kinda thing with Naruto.


----------



## EJ (Jul 2, 2012)

Nikushimi said:


> That is merely a translator's choice.
> 
> The actual language is ambiguous and there is no direct English equivalent; translators just use "children" because "child/children" would look sloppy and make the grammar awkward.
> 
> ...



I'm not going to argue with you anymore. Believe that Itachi didn't kill any children.


----------



## LS20 (Jul 3, 2012)

Nikushimi said:


> Ever consider that maybe all of that is the simple result of Sasuke being the only Uchiha *left?*



Ever consider you don't read the manga, or better yet want to ignore what it's telling you?




> It makes it a lot more believable that Sasuke was the only innocent child in the clan at the time, with the Uchiha confirmed to be few in number.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*SIGH* IF ITACHI HAD A LOVER THAT MEANS THERE WERE OTHER KIDS IN THE CLAN AS HE WAS ONLY 13. That alone should be all the proof you need. In order for him to be in a relationship AT 13 there would have to be other kids for him to date. What? Was he going out with an imaginary uchiha kid that he made up in his mind?

Let me repeat it for you one more time, a 13-year old is a CHILD. Itachi = 13 = CHILD. GF =13= CHILD. Child in clan=parents=people who got together to produce child. If Fugaku and Mikoto=only parents, that means no other child in the clan for Itachi to have a romance with. This is not something "I think" or "believe" or "have an opinion" or "I'm sure" about this is FACT. You doubt or feel or believe by taking a purposely ambiguous statement (which it's obvious as fucking hell why it's ambiguous in a got damn PG-13 manga) assume there were no other children despite what the manga has told you because you don't want to believe so. Nothing you say is supported by any facts. Get it? GOT IT? GOOD.


----------



## BlinkST (Jul 3, 2012)

Rawri said:


> What's up with english translations being 'children' if Kishi most likely wrote 'child' in japanese?


Same reason many translations had Tobi saying Itachi passed on all his techniques to Sasuke:

It wasn't just at the side, look at how much is exposed.

When he never said any such thing and was speaking about the Amaterasu. People blunder. Go figure. 



Rawri said:


> Either way even if unlikely, it could still be children. Ambiguous to the end huh?


For the reasons given by the japanese speaker, I doubt it's cryptic. If the guy tells me the japanese doesn't say "children", I have to side with that, aside from the sheer lack of evidence that Sasuke was the only child at the time.


----------



## iJutsu (Jul 3, 2012)

If Sasuke was the only kid, then why bother attacking? They apparently didn't have the capability of producing more. There would not have been a future for them either way and decided to attack anyways. Now they deserved to die even more.


----------



## Muah (Jul 3, 2012)

Itachi is a murderer plain and simple. who cares if he killed children he fucking cut the head off of the woman who birthed him after he betrayed the father who taught him.


----------



## Orochimaruwantsyourbody (Jul 3, 2012)

Nikushimi said:


> That was only an ulterior motive. If Danzou had been up front about that, there's no doubt Itachi would've flatly refused him.
> 
> The original purpose for the mission was to protect Konoha and spare Sasuke from the massacre. Danzou just profiteered off of it and probably intended to from the start.



Danzo did not just profiteer off of it, he created it. Hiruzen did not feel that wiping out the clan was needed. 



> They should have seceded from the village



Konoha was forcing them to live in a small corner in the village. You think they can declare independence, when they are not even allowed to move next door?



> Going as far as to start a revolution and kill villagers indiscriminately to get what they want makes them no better than the village elders.



That's a bullshit lie. Nothing says that the Uchiha were going to indiscriminantly target civilians. It was a Coup, that does not involve targeting civilians. The only people who targeted civilians were Itachi and Tobi. 



> I'm sure you have evidence to back this up.
> 
> Oh wait.
> 
> I meant "I'm sure you don't have evidence to back this up."



It's pretty fucking obvious that a clan with hundreds of members had children.


----------



## Timeshift (Jul 3, 2012)

I don't get why people fuss so much about this. Of course he killed the children. In this fictional world, children are pit against each other, taught to fight and kill. Why should he not kill them like any older person?

Trying to apply the morality of the real world onto this fictional world is just silly.


----------



## EJ (Jul 3, 2012)

Muah said:


> Itachi is a murderer plain and simple. who cares if he killed children he fucking cut the head off of the woman who birthed him after he betrayed the father who taught him.



And people don't want to accept this.


----------

