I respectfully disagree with your conclusion about the attacks on Mumbai and your selective arguments on which you base this conclusion. Subcontinent grievances between Muslims and Hindus may provide some partial explanation of the attacks, but the targeting choices indicated a more internationalist intention on the attackers' part. This was patently an attack on Indians, Westerners and Jews with even some Muslim victims tossed into the mix.
The fact that you have totally overlooked in your article the attack on the Mumbai Chabad Center and its specific targeting and murder of Jewish victims belies your argument. This was illustrative of the hatred of Israel and Jews central to Islamism. Moreover, the fact that the attackers sailed from Pakistan to attack the city with the probable support of Pakistan's ISI rejects your notion that this was some sort of homegrown plot. The sources you cite are largely speculative about the attack's meaning, and inaccurate.
As I see it (and my speculations are as valid as your sources'), the attack on Mumbai was an attack on a society that displays cosmopolitanism, tolerance and industriousness, qualities that the city's residents share with other great metropolises of the world. It was born of a religious, specifically Islamist, intolerance and nihilism with increasing and alarming ambition and reach. This does make it similar to 9/11. To deny this is to fall victim to wishful thinking that Western civilization (and I include modern India in this category) is not currently under attack by a violent, backward, Dark Ages theology.