Your argument contains several claims that are not supported by the historical evidence.
There was a violent crackdown in Beijing in June 1989. This is documented by eyewitnesses, journalists who were present, diplomats, hospital workers, declassified government documents from multiple countries, and later research. While the exact death toll is disputed, there is broad agreement among historians that hundreds, and possibly more than a thousand, people were killed when the Chinese military used live ammunition and armored vehicles to clear protesters and bystanders.
The protests did not begin as a violent uprising. They started as largely peaceful demonstrations calling for political reform, freedom of speech, government accountability, and action against corruption. In the final hours, some protesters and residents did fight back by throwing rocks, setting military vehicles on fire, and attacking soldiers after troops advanced into the city. That does not change the fact that the military used overwhelming lethal force against civilians.
There is no credible evidence that the Chinese government deliberately recruited ethnic minorities because they "hate Han Chinese." The People's Liberation Army is a national military whose units are drawn from across China. Claims that the crackdown relied on ethnic groups chosen because they were hostile to Han Chinese are not supported by credible historical sources.
The claim about mandatory two-year programs for all ethnic groups is inaccurate. China has implemented various education, labor, and relocation policies affecting different ethnic minorities, especially Uyghurs in Xinjiang, but these policies were not introduced as a response to Tiananmen Square. Researchers generally view those policies as part of the Chinese government's broader strategy of political control and assimilation rather than a measure to prevent another Tiananmen.
Finally, dismissing the Tiananmen Square crackdown by comparing it to other events doesn't address the historical record. Serious discussions should rely on evidence from contemporaneous reporting, archival documents, eyewitness testimony, and academic research, not egotistical, unsupported assertions from the Chinese Communist Party point of view.
