Or as a Yemeni lawyer tweeted in May, "Dear Obama, when a U.S. drone missile kills a child in Yemen, the father will go to war with you, guaranteed. Nothing to do with al-Qaeda."
[...]from Drone Strikes Do Fuel Blowback in Yemen
[Howver,] instead of revenge, Swift argues that poverty motivates people to join or sympathize with AQAP.
Actually, it's the COMBINATION of drone terror and economic collapse that's driving people into the loving embrace of the British empire's "Islamic" terrorist-controllers. (Note that time after time, such as in Syria, we see proof that these "Islamic" British imperial - i.e. Satanic - terrorists have no regard for Islam other than as a means to gain the sympathy of the Islamic masses, and that they exhibit the same capacity for monstrousness as any other British agent.)
I suspect that the very reason that the global "war on terror"-tour has swung through Yemen is that the British empire needed a way to prevent the construction of the mind-boggling Bridge of the Horns, which LPAC evidently considers to be feasible despite its awesome scale, and assertions by others that it's a fantasy. Assuming that it is feasible, its construction would have unleashed an unprecedented economic boom in the region.
So, actually, the "war on terror" in Yemen is intended to protect the reputations of "free trade economists." The Bridge of the Horns would have demonstrated the value of great projects which require the use of common-good-serving governments as catalysts, and Mammon's British empire, creator of "free trade," i.e. economic warfare against mankind, couldn't let that happen.