Syria strikes: David Cameron's take on Syrian intervention in October and December is not quite what it seems

Decision to extend air strikes over Syria was passed by 174 votes on Wednesday evening after an 11-hour debate

David Cameron speaking during the debate in the House of Commons on extending the bombing campaign against Isis to Syria (PA)

The Prime Minister has been criticised online after he said opponents of air strikes in Syria were “terrorist sympathisers” despite claiming just months ago Russian strikes would only “increase terrorism”.

While the Prime Minister did condemn Russian intervention on 4 October, Mr Cameron said Kremlin’s actions were based on support for pro-Assad forces rather than targeting Isis militants.

"Tragically, what has happened is that most of the Russian air strikes, as far as we have been able to see so far, have been in parts of Syria not controlled by Isil (IS) but controlled by other opponents to the regime,” he told the BBC.

Mr Cameron claimed backing “the butcher Assad” would make the region more unstable and “it will lead to further radicalisation and increased terrorism.”

"And I would say to them: change direction, join us in attacking Isil but recognise that if we want to have a secure region, we need an alternative leader to Assad. He can't unite the Syrian people."

The PM led calls for aerial intervention over Syria, claiming British forces should bomb Isis positions in the already war-torn country, ahead of a successful vote on Wednesday.

In the run-up to the vote, he urged Conservative MPs not to vote with Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters, telling the 1922 Committee: “You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers.”

Despite criticism, Mr Cameron has refused to apologise, but said there was “honour” in voting either for or against air strikes.

The PM said bombing Isis in Syria was the “right thing” to do and the UK needed to “confront the evil” posed by Isis, also known as Daesh.

But some analysts claim bombing Isis positions would only strengthen the group and provoke more radicalism. Among critics was former Isis captive Nicholas Henin, who described the strikes as a “trap” that would only push “people into the hands of Isis”.