Pavone challenges readers to question their assumptions about terrorism. In The Paris Diversion, how do the perpetrators manipulate such preconceptions? How does the author manipulate readers?

Pavone challenges readers to question their assumptions about terrorism: who are the terrorists, what are the forces at work behind their acts, what are the goals? In "The Paris Diversion", how do the perpetrators manipulate such preconceptions? How does the author manipulate readers? 

He has created a catchall for the perceived problems of the day as throwaway scenarios: Kate: hand guns are only for killing people. Really? I use it for target practice. Forsyte's leering after Collette and her toleration and behavior in which she does not appear to notice it. To keep her job, one imagines, though at the end she finds that on second thought she doesn't need it. But does she confront him? No! And, of course, the off-handed shot at the unnamed President.

One perpetrator who manipulated me as a reader was the driver Wyatt. the references to his dying daughter as the reason he needed the money he would get for hooking up with the terrorists is what I felt was manipulative. It was, I feel, meant to inspire the reader's sympathy.

It’s difficult to capture what someone’s true internal motivation results in heinous or zealous driven acts. Wyatt’s role was explained by his daughter’s illness, the bomber’s by his cancer diagnosis, the tragic death of his wife and his desire to provide for his children. I believe the author made an attempt to illicit the reader’s sympathy or understanding providing a reason “why”. After every tragedy, it’s human to pursue the “why”. I doubt it’s ever that explainable.

I found the premise that people would assume first a Muslim person to be at fault reflects our society at present. Particularly in the US. It shines a light on what we have always been told about assumptions. The people at the heart of the 'diversion' were able to walk right past police and armed forces, while the Muslim sharpshooter ends up getting killed because of his ethnicity. The author may be trying to ask us to think about the assumptions we make.

Terrorism is an unfortunate part of today’s world. By focusing on Kate’s children and the school at the beginning the author makes you feel like they will be the target. As the story moves forward he uses our prejudices against ethnic groups to lead the police into focusing on the Muslim suicide bomber. The world economy and stock markets are so volatile that the book also made me question whether terrorist acts have been committed for financial gain.

Yes, juliaa! And I totally fell for Wyatt's excuse. Well, not completely, but I managed to have more understanding for why he decided to do what he did. Given all the health care debate happening since, well, Obamacare (and recent articles about the high cost of health care AFTER insurance), I think the the cancer treatment was a manipulation as well. Perhaps we can all understand "doing anything" to save our child- -whuile Julia/susanna was motivated purely by greed/revenge.

The perpetrators knew police action would be swift once Mahmoud was in place. He fit the profile/stereotype of a terrorist. pnelson384 makes a great point about how Susanna and Chris never once were suspected for their roles- -Hunter even willingly went with Chris to the "safe house. A man responsible for the whole citywide plot had no problem kidnapping his victim, posing as an officer of the law, while actual law enforcement shot one of their own before asking one question.