No. He wasn’t too valuable to kill. That’s why a pair of 500lb bombs were dropped on him. That’s wild speculation.
Welcome to the boards, and my apologies if I came across as rude.
It’s not that it’s strictly inappropriate – it’s just that bringing a bunch of puzzle pieces into an argument and saying “look, that one doesn’t fit” isn’t very helpful. We prefer for you to bring most of your work with you, or ask clear questions when you’re stuck. Building a hypothesis is encouraged in most cases, and helps to solve the trickier problems, but you need to actually state the hypothesis. Good examples would be “I suspect bombing Zarqawi was an accident,” or “I suspect Jordanian Intelligence had planted agents in the Iraqi unit which captured him, and they played a complicit and/or active role in ensuring he died of his injuries.”
Your entry into this discussion:
is a great example of what not to do. You assert that the “facts” as we understand them are wrong (no F-16s, no lasers, backup troops incompetent) without presenting any evidence. Then you presented “interrogation is conversion” (a bizarre syllogism; what does that even mean?) followed by an assertion that Zarqawi was captured – without stating who captured him and how they faked his death. The follow-up about virgins and houris and vengeance (again: huh?) doesn’t make much sense in the absence of context. Popping into GQ and saying “that’s not how it happened – here’s a nice made-up story that I think sounds better” is just not going to fly. Now that you seem to have caught on, I think we’ll all get on smashingly!
Also, given the autopsy report and the overwhelming evidence for the “official” version of events, I think the question in the OP has been pretty satisfactorily answered: lung trauma consistent with hanging out near a bomb impact zone.
Wouldn’t Colonel Mustard be a more likely suspect?