Stratfor was essentially labeled as a form of collateral damage. The self-described Anon spokesperson basically said they weren't one of the "offenders" but were "of interest".
I don't feel sold on the merits of going after Stratfor - it's almost as if it was merely a convenient and vulnerable target. It's not too hard to envision just about any company or organization being targeted because of some vague affiliation or "interest".
Stratfor is an organization (similar in a way to wikileaks) that offers private individuals the option of buying intelligence analysis. I used to be a subscriber.
How does stratfor get this intel to share with its clients? By tips provided by trusted sources in government. These people would probably lose their jobs if it was found out that they shared info with stratfor.
I would not be surprised if the USG infiltrated anonymous and did this attack as part of a campaign against whistleblowers.
I don't feel sold on the merits of going after Stratfor - it's almost as if it was merely a convenient and vulnerable target. It's not too hard to envision just about any company or organization being targeted because of some vague affiliation or "interest".