Difference Between Positional Play And Attacking Play?

Give me examples of both please, with that like chess board thing that can be posted please...

Positional (gaining an advantage on the dark squares by removing the black dark squared bishop and exploiting it):

Attacking:

IMHO they both blend seamlessly during a game. You need a tactical solution to exploit a positional advantage, and tactical play will (objectively!) lead to less-than-nothing if it's not respecting the basic positional elements.

I have a very good example in one of my correspondence games on LSS. However, I do have to wait for it finishing before I can post it here.

I played a slightly speculative "aggressive" opening, and I was countered by a very strong opening novelty, using a nice tactical trick, which should give my opponent a small, but quite stable positional advantage. However, in advance he chose to play a very aggressive line, which somehow violates the principles of sound development. I cannot blame the opponent, since this plan was Houdini's preferred line- BUT, instictively I did not buy that it can lead to anything concrete. I believe I have made the right choice, but more about it as soon as possible.

Yeah a positional advantage is worth nothing if you can't get the tactics to work from you, but a positional advantage means the tactics should be in your favour. They compliment each other.