Talk:Independent International Commission on Decommissioning

"Put Beyond Use"
Can anyone explain to me what the phrase "put beyond use" means. It sounds like careful parsing or a euphemism.

To me "put beyond use" would mean that they had been destroyed or dismantled in such a way that they could never be used as weapons again. But if they were destroyed why don't they simply say "destroyed," or "dismantled." Does anyone what is actually supposed to have happened to these weaopons? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Generally, it means they have been sunk in concrete. I believe that's what the OIRA did, but I can't be certain that it happened here.  It is intended to be a euphemism, I think, to generally protect the secrecy of the parties.  Cheers,  [[Sam Korn ]] 17:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, notice this article is ranked number 1 google for "Independent International Commission on Decommissioning" :) Fixed it up with some details.  The Official IRA (OIRA) havent taken part in the process as far as i know, but they have been on ceasefire since 1972.  Fluffy999 04:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I will not be responding to messages left on my talkpage or on pages for articles I have worked on. Will no longer be contributing to wikipedia. Thank you. Fluffy999 13:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Funny title
Independent International Commission on Decommissioning

On a lighter note, this is a pretty funny name...:P

--IRelayer 00:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I know, I was just thinking the same thing. Duomillia 05:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

It is a downright idiotic name. It can't be both independent and international. And to call it a commission instead of agency, board, task force, or any other synonym is farcical. I suspect there was a tongue firmly ensconced in the cheek of whoever suggested it. 75.1.248.121 (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Hilarious. --66.183.58.43 (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha I love how I'm not the only one who thought this. I actually read it like 5 times just skimming over the new wiki updates. Then I actually "read" it and almost LOLed. --Matt0401 (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Legally held firearms in Northern Ireland
I like to suggest that this whole section is deleted. The article is about the IICD, whose remit was illegally held firearms. This isn't an article on 'Firearms in Northern Ireland' Whiteabbey (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the section Whiteabbey (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I was unaware of how to create a new section. I would put forward that the section on the arms haul from 2013 be removed or significantly modified due to factual inaccuracy and bias. Firstly, the arms found were not part of a provisional cache, they belonged to dissident groups (though it may be accepted that they aquired these arms when splitting from the provisionals over the very issue of decommissioning). Secondly, the manner in which it is described is clearly biased, and unprofessional, with terms such as 'lies and truth' etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.131.169 (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)