Really? Like what? Directed attack means stuff like "Choose a player. this player [does X, Y and X]". Placing the robber is about as directed as it gets in Settlers, but you're targeting a land hex that belongs to no-one in particular, it just so happens there's a guy round it. You might think that's semantics, but there's a difference: if people you don't want to suffer are round the hex too you can't help but effect them, and if you can't find a decent spot you're stuffed. It's indirectly affecting the player you want to suffer. Also, refusing to trade with someone isn't an attack, neither is building a road in an awkward/blocking spot, they're both indirect or entirely passive.
All these are aggressively interfering with the other player in some way or other, but even Carcassonne can be an aggressive game in that way. However, they are not directed attacks like Risk or something. A lack of direct attacks does not mean a lack of interaction, and any interaction usually can manipulated to your advantage and your opponent's disadvantage, which seems like an attack.
To relate this back to the topic:
This is one thing that remains unexplained in this thread: how to do attacks factor in to the equation considering they attack everyone? (and so, btw, are not direct) Does this still fit in? Or is it jarring? A militia goes and causes trouble in all other kingdoms, simultaneously. Sort of.
