The post you are reporting:
If a strike were made on a stockpile of chemical weapons, and supposing Syrian soldiers were guarding these to prevent them falling in the hands of anyone else and to prevent them, therefore, being used in the civil war (A Syrian government spokesman once said they would never be used against the Syrian population), would this not mean killing all these soldiers with chemical weapons?
In the sense that they would be either killed by the tomahawk missiles or they would die from the chemicals hit by the tomahawk missiles. That would be waging chemical warfare, and on soldiers whose duty was to prevent these chemicals falling into unauthorised hands (such as Al Q).
Would it not be proper justice to investigate and, if conclusive and compelling, state: Mr. so and so gave the order to use chemical substances that killed hundreds of people and intoxicated many others, and Mr. X relayed the order to so and so, who carried it out.
This group of people could then be indited by the Hague War-crimes Tribunal.
And meanwhile, these same people would be shunned by all those around them.
Much better than simply firing off hundreds of cruise missiles at any Tom, Dick and Harry in Syrian uniform, and all without even any research or compelling evidence anyway!
That said, supposing Al Q did it, or the FSA?