David Cameron says those against bombing syria are 'terrorist sympathizer's

Not really. He's trying to get a motion passed that he genuinely believes will help enhance security/combat our enemies, and those of our close allies (who have requested our assistance following a harrowing attack). I’ve watched him speak on this matter a few times and nothing I have seen communicates "desperation"

Ditto how he, and the Conservatives, feel about Corbyn and Labour – to suggest that they feel threatened is absolutely preposterous, both are a total joke and the Tories had a superior attitude to start with, even before Milli-Balls entered the fray, never mind poor old confused Corbyn!

Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser. He applauds the violent campaigns carried out by the IRA and Hamas. He claims peace in Northern Ireland was only achieved by the violence of the IRA and thus it was necessary. Labour are also okay with bombing ISIS in Iraq. But suddenly we want to attack them in Syria and all of a sudden Labour are staunch pacifists? Nonsense. Makes no sense.

No. It's the intentions and results behind 'bombing' that decides whether or not someone is a terrorist.

Ridiculous.
It doesn't make him any less of a terrorist.

If you cant see the difference between Iraq and Syria then you need to step away from any serious debate regarding Middle East policy.

Let me simplify it for you:

Iraq > airstrikes + legitimate ground forces (the Kurds and Iraqi army) = territory being regained after ISIS strongholds are bombed and weakened

Syria > airstrikes + no coherent ground force = wasted bombs after ISIS easily retake areas due to no credible opposition

The only forces capable of making serious use of airstrikes are those in support of Assad (sorry, i dont believe in Dave's ficticious 70 000 "moderate" rebels). However, the West still seem unwilling to recognise the possibility of Assad staying in power. This puts them in direct conflict with the aims of Russia who are also currently conducting airstrikes. The incoherence of the whole situation is amplified by Turkey's involvment. They have shown an unwilligness to secure their borders to stop the flow of ISIS recruits, have repeatedly attacked Kurdish forces who are actually fighting ISIS, are suspected of buying oil from ISIS or facilitating its transport and last but not least have already shot down a Russian jet.

If this whole situation doesn't scream chaos to you then I dont know what will. I haven't even scraped the surface of the gigantic cluster**** that is Syria.

To the earlier part of your post. The UK under Cameron actually helped train rebels who, yes you guessed it, are now fighting for ISIS. And lets not forget our bezzie mate in the region, Saudi Arabia, whose terrorist sympathies at the very least could be described as "problematic" (as well as their role in the Yemen conflict).

So if you think this situation can be solved by the UK dropping a few bombs in Syria then you are woefully misguided.

What's the difference between ISIS car bombing a baracks in the UK and the UK bombing an ISIS stronghold? You and I both know only one will be called a terrorist attack, even if the ISIS attack had no collateral damage i.e. civilian deaths

I don't support ISIS btw, I am just questioning the lax use of the buzzword 'terrorism'

I'm hardly the guy's fan but he said no such thing. He was reported to have said, "Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers." He did not call Jeremy Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser, nor that everyone who disagrees with the airstrikes was one.

I'm all for attacking Cameron, but let's at least stick to the things he's actually guilty of.

Well he said in his speech not so long ago, that Jeremy Corbyn was a “security threatening,terrorist-sympathising, Britain-hating” person so I don't think his opinion has changed much since then.

Well, Jeremy Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser if you count the IRA as terrorists.

1) Over 40,000 people died during the blitz. If ISIS were to sustain a fraction of that number of casualties they will have been completely annihilated

2) Britain had many advantages that ISIS do not e.g. territorial/organisational/logistical/structural, not to mention facing an adversary dropping relatively primitive/indiscriminate ordinance with no hope of encouraging any interested parties/allies of invading the territory/overthrowing the leadership of those they were bombing

3) Germany's enemy, the British Government, had the near-total support of the people, and the people had no choice but to resist. Whilst many sunni's are bonded to ISIS, those who are not fervant supporters or totally (somewhat rightly) paranoid about what might happen if/when non-sunni's take over the show, there are also many who are e.g. moderates/just too afraid and/or lack the means to repel ISIS from their lands

That argument held sway before Paris #2. As it stands, the people of Europe no longer care. As @queen-bee recently, rightly put it: "enough is enough". No longer shall we allow fear of reprisals to breed inertia. Chamberlain's moment has passed, the time for a new Churchill is upon us

1) There is a better plan afoot: “It is part of a broader strategy. It’s about the politics, the diplomacy, and the humanitarian aid” – David Cameron

2) “Airstrikes alone cannot defeat ISIL, but they can degrade ISIL, they can prevent ISIL expanding further in Syria. They can relieve the pressure on opposition forces that are being attacked by ISIL” – UK Government. If you don’t believe that, listen to the Kurds, and this man who went to Syria to fight alongside the Kurds (12:50)

If you cant see the difference between Iraq and Syria then you need to step away from any serious debate regarding Middle East policy.

Let me simplify it for you:

Iraq > airstrikes + legitimate ground forces (the Kurds and Iraqi army) = territory being regained after ISIS strongholds are bombed and weakened

Syria > airstrikes + no coherent ground force = wasted bombs after ISIS easily retake areas due to no credible opposition

The only forces capable of making serious use of airstrikes are those in support of Assad (sorry, i dont believe in Dave's ficticious 70 000 "moderate" rebels). However, the West still seem unwilling to recognise the possibility of Assad staying in power. This puts them in direct conflict with the aims of Russia who are also currently conducting airstrikes. The incoherence of the whole situation is amplified by Turkey's involvment. They have shown an unwilligness to secure their borders to stop the flow of ISIS recruits, have repeatedly attacked Kurdish forces who are actually fighting ISIS, are suspected of buying oil from ISIS or facilitating its transport and last but not least have already shot down a Russian jet.

If this whole situation doesn't scream chaos to you then I dont know what will. I haven't even scraped the surface of the gigantic cluster**** that is Syria.

To the earlier part of your post. The UK under Cameron actually helped train rebels who, yes you guessed it, are now fighting for ISIS. And lets not forget our bezzie mate in the region, Saudi Arabia, whose terrorist sympathies at the very least could be described as "problematic" (as well as their role in the Yemen conflict).

So if you think this situation can be solved by the UK dropping a few bombs in Syria then you are woefully misguided.

Says the guy selling arms to Saudi Arabia?

Ridiculous.
It doesn't make him any less of a terrorist.

The allegations against him was reported by The Telegraph, a news paper that supports the Tory Party and is right wing, so I seriously doubt that its true.