Attacking Away From the King

I hear things about attacking wherever your pawns point or attacking on other sides of the board. I don't get it because I don't know in what types of positions one would do this and sometimes it just involves doing things on the other side of the board away from the king for seemingly no reason (or a reason I don't understand yet :) ) It just seems like you're attacking just to attack. I'm a 1300 player so I have a very simple view of the game but I want to know A) does this impact me at my level, considering that positional advantages aren't too useful at my level, B) under what sorts of circumstances would I attack away from the king if it doesn't win me material or a passed pawn, C) what would be the goal of this attack and D) is this all for positional players or should I be concerned about this, too?

If you launch an attack on the other side of the board, with the threat of winning material, your opponent may have to delgate a piece for defence. That piece now may no longer able to defend a vital square on his kingside, thus enabling you to win material/launch an attack on the kingside.

in many openings the strategy is to attack on the Q-side. For example, in the king's indian, white attacks the Q-side whereas black attacks the king. The reason is simple. White tries to defend the king by various moves like f3 etc.. and if white is succesful in running over the Q-side then the pieces can be directed towards the king through the queen side.

Of course, every attack should eventually give you a mate or a material advantage.

You attack where the opponent has weaknesses. If there are no weaknesses, you attack to create weaknesses. To do so, you need to outmaneuver your opponent. This is much easier if you have a space advantage, so you will often launch your attack on the wing where you have (or will be able to aquire) more space.