I find it amazing that how easy it was to prove you wrong here. Before you respond, watch the clip I posted and please tell me why you are still right

I've seen the clip but now I'm wondering why you haven't attempted to prove me wrong, if it's supposed to be so easy. Obviously that video does nothing to contradict my point and in fact further supports it.

and please give me a citation to where he says you have to be tanned and have a beard.

It's in his first article on the topic where he mentions he could fall inside the target if he looked like Adam Gadahn (who looks as I described).

You are wrong on the first point. the racial profiling is the first thing I checked. He said a white guy that looked like him would be checked

You need to read more on the topic, you seem to be trying to defend him against the charge of racism by trying to quickly google it, rather than understanding the issue being discussed.

In the same article I linked to above, he doesn't say that someone like him should be checked. That's something he's tried to claim after publishing his original claims in his book and blog. What he actually says is this:

We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it. And, again, I wouldn’t put someone who looks like me entirely outside the bull’s-eye (after all, what would Adam Gadahn look like if he cleaned himself up?) But there are people who do not stand a chance of being jihadists, and TSA screeners can know this at a glance.

If he thinks he should be checked, then why does he say that he wouldn't fall entirely outside the bulls-eye? Isn't that extremely odd phrasing?

If I defined "apple" as a "round red fruit" and you handed me an apple (a round red fruit), it would be strange for me to say: "That thing you've just handed me wouldn't fall entirely outside my definition of an apple". Of course it wouldn't fall entirely outside of it, because it fits it perfectly. To say it doesn't "fall entirely outside of it" is to say that it doesn't fall entirely inside of it either.

It would only make sense to phrase it that way if the specific instance doesn't entirely fit the definition given. So what's missing in Harris' example? What characteristics would he need to meet in order to fall entirely inside the bulls-eye? Who falls entirely inside it?

The answer is harder to find since he recently went back to edit his blog posts, but given that he originally referred to his idea as "ethnic profiling", we can be reasonably sure who he was talking about:

It is not enough for moderate Muslims to say “not in our name.” They must now police their own communities. They must offer unreserved assistance to western governments in locating the extremists in their midst. They must tolerate, advocate, and even practice ethnic profiling. It is simply a fact that the greatest predictor of terrorist behavior anywhere in the world (with the exception of the island Sri Lanka) is whether or not a person believes that Allah is the only god and Muhammad is his prophet. Moderate Muslims themselves must acknowledge this fact without equivocation. The time for political correctness and multi-cultural shibboleths has long passed. Moderate Muslims must accept and practice open criticism of their religion. We are now in the 21st century: all books, including the Koran, should be fair game for flushing down the toilet without fear of violent reprisal. If you disagree, you are not a religious moderate, and you are on a collision course with modernity.

My emphasis.

and that you shouldn't waste time by checking at random, and should prioritise based on factors that are known to be more likely. He gives the example of prioritising middle aged men over the elderly, children, or celebrities. He even qualifies it with saying that this is until we have an example of the elderly or celebrities committing such an act.

If you're interested, a number of security experts have explained to him why his arguments on that issue are wrong (i.e. he's not basing his position on factors "known to be more likely") and his approach increases security risks and potential harm.

Importantly, in the video you linked to he supports my point here: he says that we shouldn't care about Japanese women, or Norwegian children. Why did he pick those examples? Why didn't he say that we shouldn't target Iranian women, or Afghani children? Because they fall in his bulls-eye.

Kinda seems like you made that one up...and I am half Arab if you were wondering BTW.

Your half-nationality and quick googling of a 4 minute video isn't enough to challenge my arguments. If you really think it is, then there's no hope. Do some more homework.

Your second point is stupid, I wasn't asking about that subreddit, they aren't Sam, not really interested in learning the views on each one of them.

This entire discussion stemmed from me saying that the Sam Harris sub is racist. You called it a strawman. I only extended it to Sam Harris later on, so it seems strange for you to argue that you're only interested in my claims about Sam Harris as even before I mentioned him you accused me of misrepresentation.