Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing for failure to state viable claim under Anti-Terrorism Act, plaintiff’s action alleging that defendant-bank with U.S. affiliates was responsible for her son’s death via roadside bomb while son was serving tour of duty in Iraq. While plaintiff alleged that defendant had tie to fatal bomb because bomb was signature Iranian weapon, and because defendant had alleged membership in Iranian conspiracy that included defendant’s institution of procedures to evade U.S. sanctions and its facilitation of Iranian banking transactions, Dist. Ct. could properly find that defendant’s actions were too attenuated from terrorist attack that killed plaintiff’s son for purposes of holding defendant liable for his death. Moreover, ordinary tort requirements of fault, state of mind, causation and foreseeability must be satisfied in any ATA action, and plaintiff otherwise failed to show that defendant’s alleged action satisfied definition of international terrorism in absence of allegation that defendant’s conduct was “violent” or “dangerous to human life.” Plaintiff also failed to allege facts that gave rise to plausible inference that defendant had agreed to provide material support for terrorism.