A volcano erupts in Iceland, and the resulting ash cloud movement forces a "no fly zone" so that airplanes don't fly through the ash.
This is, I think, the interpretation of a "no fly zone" that people understand.
So why does a "no fly zone" in Libya involve dropping bombs on tanks? I mean, you can probably make an argument for preemptively dropping bombs on Libyan planes to ensure they don't fly -- but firing missiles at Gadaffi's compound? What does that have to do with keeping Libyan planes out of the air? If we are going to provide combat air support to rebel operations, we should be up front about it rather than hiding behind the "no fly zone" and baffle-gabbing it with "duty to protect" nonsense.
This is why politicians are not trusted. Even when they appear to be speaking English, they are really speaking a highly specialized language which is both inconsistent with English and has distinct definitions for terms -- even though the politician's language happens to use all the same words as English.
