[1] That's not to be interpreted as a claim on my part that they are. This sentence, however, may freely be interpreted as such.
(Firefox's spellcheck isn't working for me atm (nightly, so no surprise) - please accept my apologies for any embarrassing typos above.)
Strategically speaking, it would have been much better to just keep listening. Now involved parties will do their best to lock down, and it will be harder for Anons to eavesdrop... but hey, we got some LULz, right?
The FBI, DHS, TSA and so on /can/ be defeated through humiliation - you just have to keep at it until enough voters get the message for a few politicians to use "regulate XYZ" and "abolish the ABC" as mechanisms for political gain.
Having other people be scared of and by them is very obviously their goal based on their rhetoric. They pick random "missions" and make demands, but it's about obtaining compliance based on fear, not about a "philosophy" or "culture."
This is typical because since they were abused and made fun of, and constantly in fear as children, they think that's how you "win"--to be bigger and badder and stronger. Now they have found a way to be seen as big and scary without having to be attractive, strong, and popular like their former enemies--all this takes is...fingers, very rudimentary knowledge of technology (or at least the ability to read and follow directions). They also exploit the fact that so many people are clueless about technology--even the ones entrusted with securing access to systems.