"People are rightfully outraged in basketball by intentional fouls."
That is not even close to being true, and if that's your defense then you're deliberately being obtuse. Everyone knows that, in certain situations, strategic nous requires one team to foul intentionally, and both teams plan accordingly. The inbounding team will try to get the ball to their best free-throw shooter, and the defending team will try to quickly foul and/or prevent the ball from getting to him.
Just to clarify, the fouls are usually a defending player basically hugging the attacking player to stop the play and create an obvious foul. The referee knows what's coming as much as anyone playing, so he is ready as well.
It's simply strategy - action A, no foul, leads to the other team being able to run time off the clock. action B, a foul, leads to no time being run off the clock, but the other team gets to shoot free throws. Strategically for my team, action B and its results are better, therefore I will foul.
By the same token, Suarez' situation in that game: action A - let the ball go in and lose the game. Action B - stop the ball with his hand, which will mean getting a red card and a suspension for the next game, as well as a penalty shot for Ghana with which they will probably win the game. He made the right call - the punishment for his action was harsh, but it was still better for his team to go with choice B from a pure strategic standpoint. He didn't try to fool the ref; he simply decided that B was better, all things considered, and stopped the ball.
Simple as pie. And the exact same thing as the basketball game; sure, it happens more often in basketball, but it's exactly the same calculus. Neither one is cheating; both are good strategy.