This article consists of a lot of baseless speculations and conjecture.

Under German law e.g. there is a clear difference for an agent provocateur to directly incite specific felonies ("we have to hack company x by doing y") compared to just generally staying 'within cover' by proclaiming generic plans ("let's harm bad companies"). I don't know about US law, but so far I have not seen evidence of him behaving in the former and not the latter way. FBI would have to have been really stupid to not have instructed him quite specifiy on this issue, and law enforcement is generally not stupid, especially in high profile cases. So don't count on entrapment.

Also, who has ever seen evidence that sabu - and by extension the FBI - has ever actually 'hacked' after being turned? To the contrary, the only logs I have ever seen (within indictment), indicate (as far as I can remember) that it was anarchos who did the actual hacking of StratFor. According to the conversatiom logs between sabu and anarchos I have read it seems as if anarchos kept other members of Anon/antisec mostly in the dark as to the details of the operation. On currently publicly available information, anarchos seeme to have done the actual 'hacking' on his own and only needed help (ftp'ing data sets for backup) afterwards. Also note that the FBI server was not the only server the data was transferred to. But providing a server to save evidence and to generally support (but not incite) a crime fits much better with the legal framework for agent provocateurs.

Also, one has to remember the general model of how anon operates - it, if by chance, resembles a need-to-know basis similar to military or intelligence operations. Do not assume their 'leader' knew exactly what any one 'member' (of what? Anon is by defintion not a specifiable group, even sub-groups are constantly changing) was specifically up to at any moment.

It's also not very insightful to blindly trust the FBI assertion that sabu was caught because he logged onto IRC just once (!) without a proxy. Given that he was always operating with proxies, bouncers and under TOR, and also given that he was publicly 'doxed' wrongly beforehand (but also correctly (!) before being visited by the FBI), why would a single unprotected login lead the FBI to actually following up on the IP and paying the 'IP address a visit', so to speak. It's possible, sure, but is it probable?
For me, another possibility is more probable: sabu was a bit too forthcoming with personal, identifiable information when on IRC and chatting with people he assumed to know. Is it only a nice coincidence that laurelai, another member of anon, was visited by the FBI in the months before sabu was turned? Laurelai has admitted to the visit and even to talking to the FBI for hours, but has maintained to not habe snitched. Believable? I don't know - but it's at least more probable as to why they got to sabu. It's also standard operating procedure for the FBI to rely on several informants to get to the big guys. They very often go forthe - more reliable - human intel instead of 'internet logs'.

There is a bunch of other stuff which doesn't add up, but probably no one cares. This is why I don't read newspapers anymore. I can make up baseless conjecture and end up misinformed all by myself, thank you very much.