If you bomb a chemical weapons storage facility, isn't that essentially the same as launching a chemical weapons attack on that area? I mean, by destroying the chemicals' containment, you're intentionally releasing them.

If there were stockpiles of chemical weapons at some facility, bombing it could result in numerous civilian casualties by dispersing, potentially, a very large amount of chemicals into the local environment. The only "safe" way to get rid of them would be to capture the facility intact and remove the chemicals. Either the Pentagon must have been willing to risk killing a bunch of innocent civilians with chemical weapons, or they must have known they weren't putting anyone at risk because there were no chemical weapons. It's kind of one or the other as far as I can see. Your thoughts?