Sloppy Reporting?

The following article about the use of thermobaric warheads is, I believe, a rather sloppy job of reporting. It has a number of inaccuracies and assumptions:

"which sucks the air out of victims, shreds their internal organs and crushes their bodies" Yes, but how is this more brutal than a regular bomb which blasts the bodies apart?

"condemned by human rights groups as “brutal”". Let's be perfectly clear. Quoting a human rights organization that wants all weapons banned is not useful information.

"The cloud of burning aluminium powder means victims often die from asphyxiation before the pressure shreds their organs." Wrong. The gap between the aluminum powder being dispersed and the blast wave hitting is a fraction of a second.

"British Apache pilots complained that standard Hellfire antitank missiles were going straight through buildings and out of the other side." No mention of the fact that the regular missile eventually hits and kills an unintended target, instead of the people you are trying to kill.

"Parliament has never assented to their use." Thus quoted from a member of the Opposition. But does Parliament need to provide approval?