Ive been thinking, when dose innocence becomes ignorance or are they one in the same.

From Wiki>
Innocence can also imply lesser experience in either a relative view to social peers, or by an absolute comparison to a more common normative scale. In contrast to ignorance, it is generally viewed as a positive term, connoting an optimistic view of the world, in particular one where the lack of knowledge stems from a lack of wrongdoing, whereas greater knowledge comes from doing wrong. People who lack the mental capacity to understand the nature of their acts may be regarded as innocent regardless of their behavior. From this meaning comes the term innocent to refer to a child under the age of reason or a person, of any age, who is severely mentally disabled.

Example: Say a radical terrorist group decides to blow up a building in NY, so they send a suicide bomber to do the job. The bomber thinks to him self "Ok this is all for my county men that have died recently and this will bring peace." But in reality they are sending him to die because there is a man in that building that the leaders of the group needs to die. (He dies in vain and doesn't do any thing.)

What would you consider this^ as. Ignorance, innocence, or both.

Discuss.

I do not consider the mentioned terrorist in the example to be innocent, nor ignorant

he knows he is going to die, he thinks that the ideology he is a part off, is more important than his life. If anything the world needs more people that would die for their principles and beliefs. Do not get me wrong, I am against extremists and their methods.
Back to topic,
I think
ignorant is someone who did not want to learn something
innocent is someone who hadn't the opportunity to learn it

More often the word 'innocence' refers to lack of bad history/intentions rather than knowledge, as in defendant being innocent of a crime.

When it is used to refer to lack of experience/knowledge, it is used in cases where the lack of said experience/knowledge doesn't result in great harm to those around. When it is "cute".
Suicide bombs and piles of dead isn't cute. Usually.

Basically both terms are quite right to this terrorist, and for all people on the Earth. Because no mere mortal can obtain such huge amount of information ( to know everything ), in such a short time period as human lifetime. Therefore you will always be ignorant in something (may be politics, may be art,etc.) and you will always be innocent (many people will not want you to learn about something, that threatens them). So if you want to apply these terms right, you should specify in what sphere or topic a person you are talking about is ignorant or innocent.

P.S. Extremests are same people as us, they just have been raised within strong beliefs by wise and strong people, that are using their innocence and turning that to their own benefit.
I hope you get my point.

This is essentially the question of when a newbie becomes a noob.

It is hard to define, but I know it when I see it.

Ignorance makes a person innocent, but any functioning law system has to ignore that fact.

I do not consider the mentioned terrorist in the example to be innocent, nor ignorant