that's still a hell of a lot of human rights violations.

And that is a fair position to take. The problem is that most people don't seem interested in nuance like you. Far too many poorly informed people are reflexively jumping to the defense of the Rohingya, either ignoring or trying to explain away the misconduct on that side which instigated the current conflict. People want an easy good vs evil narrative, and for most people that means painting the government of Myanmar as the bad guy. Given their long history of international isolation and relatively recent move towards democracy, it makes for an easy narrative to sell, but it isn't really correct.

The other question that people in your position - that is to say, the intellectually honest critics of the Myanmrese government - need to be able to answer is: given that the Rohingya are an actual problem, with their violent separatist aims that have caused a problem doing back several decades, and given that the terrorists hide among the civilians and rely on their support, what should the Myanmarese army do? How much civilian collateral is acceptable in an attempt to permanently end this national security problem?