That's just dull contrarianism: suspecting "something fishy" just because everyone's opinions happen to line up. (As opposed to, I dunno, an obvious collective response to a nation doing something incontrovertibly wrong?)
That is question-begging of the first order, and also circular logic. "A unanimous response is not fishy, because it is incontrovertibly wrong; it is incontrovertibly wrong because the response is unanimous."
Not really. It is hard to get disparate nations to agree on anything, unless you suspect there is a secret, central party coordinating the response. Consensus of this unusual sort gives credence to the claims.
