I am not sure the distinction is terribly meaningful or helpful anyway. In as much as, in either case, people suffer, and an almighty God could stop it if he wished.
There is a huge difference. There are excuses for why a loving god might permit some suffering. There are no good reasons why he would create a world that keeps blowing up and killing hundred of thousands of its inhabitants. My argument against christian theism has always focussed very narrowly on "natural evil". Like most apologists you prefer to change the subject to an easier question.
Jesus pointed out that they were no more sinful than others. And Matthew Henry comments: "He [Jesus] cautioned his hearers not to blame great sufferers, as if they were therefore to be accounted great sinners." Which is the basic point I am making to you.Your "point" contributes absolutely nothing to the conversation. Jesus said they were unrepentant sinners and that is why they perished. My argument against christian theism centres on the indiscriminate killing of hundreds of thousands including repentant christians and innocent babies and infants. A disaster that god did not just permit he actually caused. Your lengthy and tediously repetitive rhetoric is completely unconnected to my actual argument. But you know that already.
as you point out it's the indiscriminate nature of such events, rather than whether they are "natural" or not, which is the main focus here
As I explained above you could not be more wrong about what the focus is. Natural evil proves beyond all doubt that the god of Jesus cannot exist. Other forms of evil - indiscriminate or not - do not.
The people who died in the tower collapse were not more sinful than others.
Irrelevant. All unrepentant sinners are worthy of destruction on Jesus' world.
Yes and this apparently was compatible with Jesus' belief that people who die in disasters are not being punished for being especially sinful but that such events can happen to all sinners.
I never at any time claimed they were "especially sinful". Just not accepting Jesus is enough to warrant destruction according to Jesus. But I have explained that at least 6 times.
that doesn't mean there is no answer or there can't be something about the situation I am not aware of or don't understand properly.
Yes it does. We have all the data we could possibly need. Jesus claimed that god is love. God designed a world that causes immeasurable harm. Jesus explained at length what love means in practical terms. By his own definition god is not love. Therefore Jesus was deluded or he was a liar.
I make my arguments honestly and with sincerity.
You have made remarks in recent months that make it very difficult for me to believe that.
Yet you still trust your friend, and even if you can't think of the explanation, you believe that there must nevertheless be some explanation.
The situation is absolutely nothing like that. Imagine you discover irrefutable evidence that your friend beats his wife and tortures his children. He doesn't even deny it, he just gets angry that anybody has the audacity to judge him for his actions. So you go on making excuses for him anyway.