"Mutiny is a criminal conspiracy among a group of people (typically members of the military; or the crew of any ship, even if they are civilians) to openly oppose, change, or overthrow a lawful authority to which they are subject. The term is commonly used for a rebellion among members of the military against their superior officer(s), but can also occasionally refer to any type of rebellion against an authority figure."

What evidence do you have that there was any CRIMINAL conspiracy? Taking into account that it is perfectly legal for any officer to tender his resignation at any time. Nothing to do with this instance at all but it is also perfectly within the rights of any serving member of the armed forces to disobey any order that they believe to be unlawful.

Where did they openly oppose the Government of the day? Nowhere - the choice they were given was obey or face dismissal from the Army, 57 officers each personally elected to submit their resignations - face saving opportunity for the Army and Government of the day, as neither had to dismiss anybody.

As no actions were ordered and no changes demanded by those who submitted their resignations, the change bit doesn't hold water either.

Who exactly was overthrown by the officers who submitted their resignations? The men who were forced to resign their posts in the aftermath of the incident were forced to resign by their superiors, not by those who submitted their resignation at the Curragh.

So Mr Carroll:
No Military aggression - as you originally claimed
No Mutiny - as both Thompson, numerous articles including the one you posted and myself have stated
No overt action against Home Rule (I also believe that the Irish Home Rule Bill was given Royal Assent on the 18th September 1914).