“It doesn't indicate to me that he thinks anyone who votes against airstrikes is a terrorist sympathiser. It does, however, imply that he thinks Mr Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser”
I cannot see how you can say that, Naomi (not just from the quoted words, anyway).
There was no direct connection between Corbyn and terrorist sympathisers. I’ll quote again:
“You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers”
Not Jeremy Corbyn and OTHER terrorist sympathisers. Imagine “You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and the Dagenham Girl Pipers”. That would not indicate that Jeremy Corbyn is a Dagenham Girl Piper would it?
All rather a question of semantics. However, the immediate impression I got when reading the quoted statement was that any MP who voted against the proposals must be suspected of terrorist sympathy. Otherwise why mention “terrorist sympathisers”? It is quite an easy step to take from that impression to the impression that some of Joe Public who object to the action must also have terrorist sympathies. People have all sorts of reasons to object to this proposed action from the humanitarian (however “smart” the bombing is, innocent people will be killed) to the purely practical (it will not actually achieve its stated aim, which is my viewpoint). None of those people necessarily are terrorist sympathisers. I know Mr Cameron was only talking about MPs when he made his comment and I have no time either for Mr Corbyn or terrorist sympathisers but there was simply no need to mention terrorist sympathisers at all. As has been demonstrated here his comment was likely to lead to misunderstanding. His proposal should stand (or fall) on its own merit without the need for insults.