Defence secretary Michael Fallon told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the “working assumption” is that the attack at Westminster and the Houses of Parliament was “Islamic terrorism in some form”.
We now know that the assailant drove a car into a crowd of people on Westminster bridge, and then stabbed and killed a police officer.
He was later shot by police, and died.
Sir Michael insists that the security services are working hard to find out more details about the attack.
They have been working right through the night, looking into his background, how he got hold of the vehicle, where the vehicle has been in the last day or two, and who may, or may not, have helped him.
Despite the lack of initial details regarding the attack, some people have assumed that it was perpetrated by, or connected to a so-called Islamic State.
It doesn't look like the tolerance demonstrations in London did much good. ISIS kills all including tolerant people. https://t.co/kM0oDQNgvb
— Johnny Lee Gayton (@Johnny Lee Gayton)
According to New York Times Correspondent and Isis specialist Rukmini Callimachi, who is monitoring Isis channels, as of yet Isis has not claimed responsibility.
1. London police are treating incident near parliament as terror. I'm monitoring ISIS channels & there's no claim.… https://t.co/g7UChpYbOW
Arie Kruglanski, a professor of psychology at the University of Maryland, who studies how people become terrorists said:
This is precisely what Isis was aiming for — to provoke communities to commit actions against Muslims…
Then ISIS will be able to say, ‘I told you so. These are your enemies, and the enemies of Islam.’
While being interviewed by French newspaper Le Monde, Gilles Kepel echoed these sentiments - he argued that Isis wants a civil war, and they think they‘ll get it through a “proliferation of blind attacks that will provoke lynching’s of Muslims".
These attacks will create “hotspots of war” in Europe which the terror group can exploit, he reasoned.