Why was Mumbai attacked?

I was trying to justify the Mumbai attack in some way ( enacting devil’s advocate), but every time I tried an answer I was stuck by my own logic. Some of the theories and their follies follow

1. The attack was to kill Hindus and seed partition like circumstances – It didn’t happen by a long shot. An operation like should have been in Ayodhya/Kashi to reach do it, not on CST
2. The attack was a inauguration gift to Obama. Then why the hell CST was attacked, and bullets sprayed on roads
3. The attack was on Indian nationhood to avenge Godhra, Kashmir, and many others. Well again, no mention of any of the incidents – even to the hostage guests
4. The attack was to have gains. No ransom demands were ever made, as a matter of fact nowhere we came across to a negotiable hostage situation, poor hostages were just human shields

So what were these guys after?
Have a look at following article:
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle08.asp?xfile=data/mumbaiterror/2008/November/mumbaiterror_November241.xml&section=mumbaiterror

It talks of border escalations between India & Pakistan. So here is my theory –
1. Waziristan is almost at war with the federal government in Islamabad
2. Newly elected Democratic administration is more than cooperative with US/NATO and deployed over 300,000 troops along Durand line (Pak- Afghan border) to check unrest
3. The troops are hurting ISI (or whoever controls whabies) long term plan to avenge 1971 with India and simultaneously control Kabul
4. The two objectives can be easily achieved ( it becomes easier for general kayani) if India goes on border escalation – the redeployment is then justified to US and a new president will have no understanding of how to solve this complex issue
5. Hence India is attacked to reenact the Indian mobilization seen in the aftermath of parliamentary attack – and redeploy pak forces on Indian border thereby saving Taliban from extinction

This is the only reason that makes sense to support logic of such a planned attack.