Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

autotldr t1_iyb79y7 wrote

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 79%. (I'm a bot)


> "While the lowered threat level is a positive sign, the lowering of the threat level does not mean there is no threat," Kitteridge said in a statement.

> It was the first change to the terror threat level since April 2019, when the threat risk was raised to medium in the wake of the Christchurch mosque terror attacks the month prior.

> According to the SIS statement, the change to the threat levels was due to CTAG having "Not sighted information to indicate New Zealand is currently the target of credible and specific attack plans by violent extremist groups or individuals, either based in New Zealand or offshore".


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: threat^#1 level^#2 attack^#3 terror^#4 New^#5

4

Gloorplz t1_iybxcc6 wrote

I’m sorry my Kiwi siblings and still ashamed that POS is from my country :(

1

FredDagg2021 t1_iycl6el wrote

how would they know its low when that fucker slipped through their fingers, maxwell smart would have a better idea than NZSIS

1

kongartist t1_iyct22j wrote

Just speaking generally, I feel like the terror threat is at zero immediately following an attack. Mostly because the attack has already happened. These "terror threat levels" are kinda goofy.

EDIT: I hadn't considered copy cats. Fair. Even so, dispense with scaring people and do good police work to catch perpetrators and prevent attacks.

1

Own_Tackle4514 t1_iybhljy wrote

Well US hasn't been lower than it was since pre- 9/11

−2

xmsxms t1_iybc2zi wrote

I feel realistically it should be at the lowest right after an attack and gradually increase, instead of the other way around.

−5

ArtisticWesterly t1_iybfa7w wrote

generally, it's the opposite. the risk is highest directly after as it can cause copycats.

12